On 13/1/2003, in response
to an earlier series of exchanges with Zero Sum, Ian Musgrave
wrote:
At 08:24 13/01/03 +1100, Zero wrote:
>On Monday 13 January 2003 07:14, Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote:
>[snip]
>By HIS rules. I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of the matter.> > >There are various degrees here. I find myself arguing against the> > That claims of paranormal powers should be tested.
> > > position I took with Chris Lawson about fraud. There is the
> > > knowing fraud of a conman and the possibility of error. I did not
> > > mean to suggest in any manner that Randi or his foundation are
> > > knowing frauds. I do not believe that to be the case. I am sure
> > > that he believes what he espouses.
> >
Again, the applicant chooses what to test, and what is the agreed endpoint.
The only other rules are the rules of science.
>Why do you keep claiming that which is counter to the case?
<monty python>
This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction>
</monty python>
Look, it's in the rules of the challenge http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
>Perhaps there is a difference between something being demonstrable and
>something being provable.
There is, but that's a philosophy of science issue (Go to Maths and whiskey
for proof, science doesn't do proof).
> > >There are people who do not expolit the weak and gullible,
> > > endeavour to think in a critical (rather skeptical) manner and
> > > have some belief that some form of phenomena exist.
> >>Me partiularly
> > Sure, a huge chunk of the general population would fit this
> > description.
> >
>
> > >Such a person now must keep a low profile because 'Randi's
> > > challenge' will be thrown up at them time and time again.
> >
> > No, only if such a person claims to _demonstrate_ paranormal powers
> > in a reasonably reliable way.
>I do... With a high degree, but not perfect reliability.
Then you may not be appropriate for testing. Most tests are conducted on
people who claim 100% reliability (and conducted with controls to determine
their alleged abilities are working at the time of testing).
>THANK YOU. I think that concedes my point.
No, I'm afraid you have missed the point completely.>I'll agrree that "I may not be suitable for testing". But accordingThen I'm _sure_ you can provide a statement by Randi to that effect, can't you.
>to Randi (and other 'skeptics') 'being not suitable for testing'
>implies being a fake or a fraud (I am neither). That is certainly
>what is projected to the public...
You have it exactly backwards, it's the people who claim to have _reliable_ abilities and who don't take the test (such as the spoon bender, John Edwards and Sylvia Browne) who are implied to be frauds (and then only after evidence that their abilities are due to simple tricks, eg recorded evidence of Sylvia Browne cold reading).
> > Imagine if someone claimed they could play Bach's Toccata and Fugue>And if I claim to be able to dowse and teach others to do so, but only
> > with their eyes shut. This is a fairly uncommon but still plausible
> > ability. Nonetheless I'm sure you would like to see them actually
> > do this if they have made such a claim.
>under particular circumstances...?
Then I'm sure we would like to see this demonstrated in some way.
>Anytime...
We'll follow this up in the testing thread.
> > Claiming to be able to demonstrate paranormal powers is not like>Physics, not biology.
> > claiming that you can play the Toccata and Fugue with your eyes shut.
> > We are talking about something which, if confirmed, would change the
> > face of biology at least. Do you have any doubt such claims should
> > be the subject of careful testing?
Do you doubt it should be tested carefully, regardless of which science it
revolutionises?
> > >Saying 'Prove it!" is one thing. Saying "Prove it on my terms!" is
> > >another.> > No, it's a part of standard science. When I test my hypotheses, I>No it isn't. You design the experiment and someone can't come along
> > have to do it on sciences terms, not mine. Even though I produce
> > positive evidence for "the beleaguered hypothesis held by only five
> > people on the planet", my five colleagues will get rather heavy with
> > me if I have been perceived to do the wrong controls (this happened,
> > I'm redoing the experiments with new controls).
>and say 'do it without that bit'.
Yes, they can (and do) all the time. They can consider that "that bit" was
poorly controlled, or a known artefact, or an inappropriate technique.
>And if the whole thing hinges on "that bit"?
Then you have stuffed your experiments. Do you really consider that you should try and defend an experiment based on a known artefact? It's happened to me, some of my beautiful experiments, which looked so nice, were pointed out to be due to an artefact in the system, not a well known artefact, but one none the less. I re-did the experiments with the right controls, and they were right. (In another instance, I discovered some beautiful results by another group was due to an artefact, we re-did the
experiments together).
They can (and do) ask you to
do entirely different experiments, change methodologies, statistical design
and analysis etc. My fellow scientists and I grumble and make the changes
(although on occasions we are able to point out flaws in the suggestions).
Again, I must empahsise if the whole thing hinges on something known to be poorly controlled, an artefact or an inappropriate technique, you had better sit down and seriously re-evaluate that thing.>With a well formulated field with a long history you can do this. In
>a field where there is very limited understanding by anyone, you have
>problems.
Which makes it imperative to make sure your experiments are carefully controlled. Also, biochemist as we practice it is only about 60 years old, and the techniques and models we use only about 10 years old. Controlled paranormal investigation is at least 100 years old,
If a person claims to recite the encyclopedia Britannica backwards from memory
(a remarkable claim, but within the realms of human ability), you would expect
some evidence that they could perform these tasks, for example a recitation
in front of an audience. If the person claimed they could only do it after
10 hours sleep, after 9.00 am and a _really_ strong espresso, I'm sure everyone
one would agree to these testing conditions (after all, it's the minimum
I need to function intelligibly). If they further claimed that they could
only do it inside a locked room, with no windows, with everyone listening
on the other side of the door, then people would be a little more careful
evaluating the claim. Sure, the person might be shy, but one would expect
to at least cursorily check that the room is free of copies of the Encyclopedia,
or tape recorders with a pre-recorded performance, or computers with the
Britannica on CD-ROM in it before the performance. The person (who is innocent
of dissembling and really is shy) might be miffed at this, but these are
standard controls that are needed to evaluate the claims. We would expect
nothing less (and probably a good deal more).
This is something I need to emphasise, when non-scientists are exposed to
scientific testing procedures, they often think that scientists are agin
them, that we don't belive them and think them untrustworthy. It's not so,
science has very rigorous testing procedures (not always perfect, as the
recent case of nanofabrication fraud attests), we are that hard on _ourselves_,
by the time a piece of work has reached a journal it has been exposed to
critical examination by the scientists involved, their colleagues at seminars
and meetings (my first presentation to the British Pharmacological Society
meeting was a shock), and reviewers of the journals (and yet, rubbish occasionally
finds its way through. Given that imagine how much rubbish is present where
you _don't_ have a critical review process in place). This process is not
for the faint of heart, and it is understandable that non-scientist feel
a bit overwhelmed when involved in scientific testing. But it is another
reason why Science Matters.
>No. Not entirely. Publicity is mandatory and if that is a negtive> > >But worse still, it seems that Randi proclaims "Prove it on my> > No, while this is the attitude Randi takes to _high_profile_ con
> > > terms or admit that it does not exist. If you don't play my game
> > > then you are a fool or a charlatan."
> > artists like the Spoonbender, John Edwards and Sylvia Browne, who
> > repeatedly _refuse_ to have their alleged powers tested _and_ when
> > there is good evidence all they are using is trickery (and even
> > then, the challenge tests are on the _claimants_ terms, in regard to
> > experimental setup and deciding what was a positive test).
>requirement, then you are 'fool or a charlatan'.
Only to the extent that people have to know the results. And for people like
John Edwards and Sylvia Browne, who are already major media figures and regularly
appear in public media outlets proclaiming their powers, they can hardly
object to public testing can they.
>Horsefeathers! When 'Fred' tries to demonstrate something and can't
>do it, saying "It isn't working today, I told you it might not, we'll
>have to try another day", it is not fair to say that 'Fred' "failed"
>only that he was not (yet) sucessful.
Sure, and when Fred fails time and time again, what do you say then? (especially
when Fred is making large amounts of money doing this on national TV, one
has to wonder why Freds powers evaporate under controlled conditions if they
are reliable enough to make money).
Only on rare occasions would ordinary
people get this kind of media exposure.
> > For ordinary people, the test is taken on _their_ terms. They are>That is simply not true. It has to be compatible with the rules in his
> > the ones who decide on test design, _they_ are the ones who decide
> > what a clear demonstration of their powers are.
>challenge.
Again, read the actual rules of the challenge. The claimants decide on the
test design, the claimants decide on what a clear demonstration of their
powers are. THAT is part of the rules of the challenge.
>All predicated on the assumption that the 'claimants' understand what
>they are trying to prove.
NO, NO, NO.
Please read the rules. http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
where it is explicitly stated that no understanding is required or expected.
>I have this image of a Norseman trying to prove that a compass points
>North and being told, "I want to see it work wirth THIS piece of
>rock"...
Which is entirely irrelevant to the Randi challenge. The applicants nominate the test, and the outcome. In the case of dowsers, they get to use their own dowsing rod, can bring their own materials, and part of the testing is an open test to see that their claimed abilities are working before the controls are applied (which is often no more than double blind randomisation).
>When Randi and Smith did that dowsing TV program, I was pretty dammned
>sure what would happen (all would fail - they did) simply because of
>the circumstances involved.
Yes, adequate controls.
> > Again, see http://www.randi.org/>I've read it. A while ago, but.
> > for the conditions of the test, which explicitly states this.
Then go and read it again.
> > >It is the same mentality that has expanded the governments policing
> > >powers unconscionably - "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing
> > >to fear".
> > >Same bullying attitude.>Yes the ability should be tested but in a manner acceptable to both
> > No, very different. People are making a claim to an ability, there
> > is a request for testing of this alleged ability. If people claimed
> > to play Tocata and Fuge blindfolded, or wrestle alligators or recite
> > the encyclopedia Britannica backwards from memory, you would expect
> > some evidence that they could perform these tasks. Given the long
> > history of misunderstanding of normal phenomenon, and the high
> > incidence of outright fraud in claims of paranormal activity, the
> > tests _must_ be more careful than the test for someone repeating the
> > encyclopedia Britannica backwards from memory.
>parties, not just Randi.
Which it is. That's the whole point. The challenge is designed in this way.
>No it is not. Cop out.
Read the Klatting rules, it is a condition of the rules that the test be acceptable to both parties.
>To prove "myself" I need to find a test that Randi finds acceptable,
>else I am a 'fraud'.
No, you just have to have a test which can be adequately scientifically
controlled.
And Randi is on record as saying that dowsers are the most honest persons
he has met (Swift, 1999, vol3-4)
>If you draw up a truth table you find that the ircumstances are not
>symettric in any way.
>But it is a damn site less than Randi would make.> > The financial consideration to someone who has proven paranormal
> > >On top of that, in the unlikely event that he ever gets proven
> > >wrong, he makes a fortune and can afford to sit back and either
> > > shut up or be magnanimous at his own pleasure.
> > powers is not to be sneezed at either.
What an interesting claim. The winner gets 1 million dollars (less tax),
income from interviews in print and electronic media, possible income from
writing a book "How James Randi confirmed my powers" and possible income
from application of those powers (and with the bonus of being the only person
who can claim they are certified to have those powers).
>And you told *ME* to go and re-read the challenge. Well, you go and
>do that and look for the word "exclusive". Then tell me it is an
>"interesting AND accurate" claim, please.
Yes, the word "exclusive" is not there in any part of the claim. The paragraph
that may be most relevant is:
3. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.
Note the absence of the word exclusive. The applicant is unfettered in
their use of the data gathered in the test.
Now, if you have misremembered this, what else have you mis-remembered?
Randi gets income from interviews
in print and electronic media, and possible income from writing a book "How
I confirmed Joe Bloggs powers" .
Sorry, I can't see how Randi
is going to make vastly more that the person with demonstrated paranormal
powers, even given he is more publicity savvy.
>This is morally wrong. Challenge me and *lose* either way...
One million dollars (less tax) in the bank, fame, and the vindication of
your paranormal ability. This is a use of the word lose with which I was
previously unaccustomed (well, there are those chat show appearances).
> > >He can't lose. Not a fair bet.
> > He's NOT making a bet. He's offering a monetary prize for>It is touted as a bet and he decides the controlled conditions.
> > demonstration of paranormal effects under controlled conditions.
It is not touted as a bet, it is promoted as a test. It is a challenge
precisely parallel to the one million dollar prize offered for proof of the
Reinmann conjecture. In the Reinmann challenge, the applicants have to have
their alleged proofs scrutinized by a panel of top flight mathematicians,
they have no say in this, and no say in what constitutes a proof of the conjecture.
The Randi challenge applicants have far more latitude than the Reinmann challenge
(and the institute setting up the Reinmann challenge get the publicity
too).
>It is touted as a "bet", a "challenge", a "dare". "Put up or shut
>up". This is the way the public (that I consulted) regard it.
Then I'm sure you can show us an instance where the word "bet" is used.
In all the missives I've seen, the word "test" is used.
A bet is also symmetric, the applicants don't agree to give Randi a million
dollars if they fail the test.
>Of which I am one.> > >It is however easy to make a dent in the self esteem of thousands
> > >and thousands of little people.
> > Then you don't know much about Randi. Why do you think he actually>So he can claim _victory_.
> > _tests_ claims, rather than just being dismissive?
Hmmm, you really don't know much about Randi then
>All right, because he makes a better living out of doing it that
>way...
Well, given that you have got the major details of the challenge wrong, you
might consider that you have got this wrong as well (also given Randi's public
and private statements that he wants to make sure that no babies are thrown
out with the bathwater)
>I can "put up". I've "put up" in the past. I won't do it [for] bloody> > > > >And those who don't?> > > > Are left alone. It's one thing to believe you can move ping pong
> > > > balls by though alone, another to claim of national TV that you
> > > > can diagnose disease by thought alone. The latter people are
> > > > those that are challenged publically.
> > >No, the whole public is challenged. "Put up or shut up".> > The whole public is not challenged. Only those who make claims of
> > >Inappropriate. Bully tactics.
> > reproducible paranormal phenomenon. Should these people not "put
> > up"? Would you expect less of someone who claimed they could recite
> > the entire encyclopedia Britannica backwards from memory?
>Randi. I won't (wouldn't, can't) put money in his pocket. If you are
>wrong you should lose, not win.
Again, it's not a bet, but a test. Again, it's not about _you_ but about
testing paranormal claims in general.
However, you could also try for the Australian Skeptics prize of $10000 AUD
(Randi is not involved), or even just do some well controlled experiments
under double blind conditions and get them published in a reputable journal.
I understand there are problems designing such tests, but that is a potentially
solvable problem that apples to all possible testing.
> > If you don't think these claims should be tested, why should any>I don't say there shouldn't be tests. I say that Randi should not be
> > other sort of scientific claim be tested with any rigour?
>allow to limit the condition in tests.
The only limits in the tests are those of acceptable scientific controls.
Everything must be agreed to to the satisfaction of the claimant.
>Who may or may not understand what they are doing.
If they don't then why are they involved in the testing (unless you mean,
they don't understand the theoretical basis of what they do, this is irrelevant,
they just have to demonstrate an ability under controlled circumstances)
>Reliable, but fragile. Certain things need to be managed.> > Strangely enough, Randi doesn't wander around the streets of America> > > > Are left alone, if they want to take up the challenge they are> > >But they aren't left alone. If they make any claim to function
> > > > free to do so.
> > >(should such exist) then the 'challenge' is thrown up like some
> > >cultural phenomena or yardstick.
> > hunting down all people who claim to have paranormal abilities, he
> > has enough to do with the high profile con artists. And not _any_
> > claim to function is correct, The alleged paranormal ability must be
> > reasonably reliable so that testing can be done.
The any test would have to take account of that.
> > Almost all of us have had some experience that we feel is>And if it is repeatable 9/10 but not with randi's requirements?
> > "paranormal", but most of these are one off, or unreliable and
> > untestable. Randi's challenge only applies to those who they claim
> > to have abilities reliable enough to test.
Randi's "requirements" are that the applicants have a clear test methodology
they want to use, and a clear test endpoint. Outside of that the only "requirement"
is that there be appropriate controls in place. These are the requirements
of good science, not Randi.
>Horse-hockey! Randi is requiring that that someone both 'have' a
>'talent' and understand how that 'talent' works. We were using
>language a long time before we learnt how sound worked.
No, he is not. It is explicitly in the rules that there is no need to understand how that talent works (and any theories not be entered into). All that matters is that you have an ability reliable enough to test. If you claim to be able to detect water/gold/old socks then you will be tested for your ability to detect water/gold/old socks. In a standard test the applicant is tested under unblinded conditions to determine to the applicants satisfaction that their abilities are present and not distorted by the testing situation, than tested again under double blind conditions. The applicant does not need to understand how their ability works. (see my forthcoming post in the testing thread about this process).
>This emphaticlly NOT good science. Science explores first, gathers
>data. It doesn't shape the world first.
A huge amount of this discussion has come about because you have misremembered
the conditions of the Randi challenge.
>Because they were humiliated and ridiculed on public television when> > What was particularly horrifying, apart from the entirely reasonable> > >Yes, a TV program that was made in Australia by Randi and Smith> > > > >Patently untrue. Evidentally untrue. Spurious statement.> > > > You of course have evidence to back this statement up.
> > > > >Bollognese..
> > > about dowsing and people who 'claimed to be' or 'thought they
> > > were' dowsers. It was this particular piece of work that
> > > horrified me somewhat.
> > usage "claimed to be' . After all, until they have been tested how
> > do we know they have dowsing ability (the ability to find objects
> > via paranormal ability) rather than the ability to, say, find water
> > through subconscious recognition of landscape features (a rare and
> > remarkable talent, but not paranormal).
>they failed to prove their cases. From what I do understand of
>dowsing, tehy had no hope to begin with. They had to do some things
>they didn't - and were held in contempt for it.
Yes, it can be deeply disappointing when your claims don't work out. But they went into this of their own accord, no one made them appear on TV, they knew before hand what the tests would be and if they thought they couldn't do it, then they shouldn't have tried.
> > Did Randi chant "you're a wanker" after each trial or what?>Just about.
> >
IOW, he didn't.
>The rest of the media didn't help.
Interpolated - from a later postWhat has this got to do with my statement? No one required them to understand what they did, only that they were confident enough in the reliability of their claimed ability when tested in public.
>So? Why are you requireing them to *understand* the phenomena, not
>just use it?
>This is what strikes me as fraudulent. "You don't understand it, soThis strikes me as a non sequitur.
>you are a wanker"...
[big snip about psycic healers and legislation]>Nobody is going to fine me.
> > Nonetheless, you agree that these peoples claims should be tested.
> > How do you get these people to agree to testing? Do you thing Randi
> > is "bullying" them is worse than the TGA or consumer affairs
> > prosecuting them if they don't agree to be tested? Which is more
> > bullying, offering a million dollar prize or a tens of thousand
> > dollar fine?
Err, yes, but this is not relevant to our discussion, it's not about _you_.
You have never claimed to be a psychic healer nor do you practise as such.
You agree that such people should be tested, or at least provide proof
of their abilities. Is Randi's approach worse than having the TGA just come
along and fine them?
>But Randi disqualifies me from answering his challenge.
How precisely does he do that?
>Actually I believe that everyone has paranormal powers. Most of them> > >The fact that this does not always occur is perhaps the fault of> > Then you have accepted ipso facto that these people have no
> > >those regulations. I'd probably tighten them considerably.
> > paranormal powers, why is that?
>dont know when they are using them and cannot do it as an act of
>will. Anyone I've seen into big money has always been a fake.
And do you agree that these people should be held accountable?
>[another biggish snip]>No one here managed to design anything that would work when I> > >I met somebody who claimed to be a dowser and ridiculed him. I> > Ever worked in epidemiology? Designing scientific experiments for
> > > wound up looking the fool. He did this by teaching me to dowse
> > > and giving me a couple of elementary rules. Over a period of over
> > > a decade I managed to convince anybody interested enough that
> > > there was something going on. I haven't touched rods in twenty
> > > years, but there are still a couple of things I would like to try.
> > > There are so many caveats on the whole thing that it sounds like
> > > you are making excuses before you start.
> > difficult study areas is not something new. The real world throws
> > many slings and arrows at those doing filed experiments (like having
> > your whole study are burn down during field trials).
>introduced this two years ago.
While the list has many people with admirable qualities and knowledge, very
few of them are involved in field experimental design. Designing experiments
is not easy. Even I, who has been involved in a wide rage of experimental
design from epidemiology, to ecology to standard test tube bench work, cannot
claim to be an expert in experimental design (I'm an expert in certain kinds
of experimental design, but designs don't always generalise).
Could you (in another thread as this is getting crowded) briefly outline
the experiments suggested and why they wouldn't work.
> > Producing an appropriate well-controlled study may not be simple,>That is proper. What Randi offers is not.
> > but it is doable. During experimental design I spend more than half
> > my time trying to work out appropriate controls.
He offers controlled trials.
>But not assistance with test design
<SIGH> Yes, he does. Through independent experts (otherwise people
could claim Randi and JREF munged {mangled? bungled?}
the design).
>I don't mind being wrong but...> > >But I don't want to be ridiculed if I can't make them work to> > No one here would do that. Again, if scientific testing we have the
> > > provide 'proof positive'.
> > concept of statistical power, where we can state the probability of
> > seeing an effect under certain test conditions, we also have the
> > concept of multiple trials.
> > >That would be a very hard thing to do on technical> > I've had favored hypotheses fail catastrophically before (I've even
> > >grounds and something that I believe may be impossible anyway. I
> > >know Randi would think I am a fool, I have no desire to have my
> > > nose rubbed in that.
> > disproved my pet theory, that was very dissapointing, but should I
> > have left things alone to avoid disappointment), it's a hazard of
> > science. There's nothing to do for it but say "I was wrong" and get
> > on with life.
>I have tried to do that and cannot.> > >However, I'm not at all sure I am incorrect.> > Then why not try and plan a possible, decent experiment?
What were the major design problems?
>And if the rules preclude sucess, you're stuffed.> > >Because I don't think he is fair in the way he does things. Sure,> > Which is why the tests are designed with the applicants, with the
> > >frauds aren't fair and I don't care what he does to them, but not
> > >all are frauds. God knows, one of them may even be right...
> > applicant controlling the methodology and what is to be considered
> > an adequate demonstration. And why the tests are carried out under
> > independent supervision. It is only by rigorous testing that we will
> > find out if one of them is right.
The rules do NOT preclude success.
>In making that statement you make the very assumptions that preclude
>sucess. You assume that you already know the rules of how it works
>(or does not work).
Again, the rules _specifically_ state that no knowledge of the mechanism
is required, all that is required is a testable ability.
Again, I ask you to actually read the rules. A large chunk of this thread
has been you emphatically claiming things about the rules which can be demonstrated
are not there. (eg, the exclusive business above)
And continuing on 15/1/2003
>In an area where 'conciousness' is involved, you are actually
>integrating observer with the experiment. This must, has to, occur.
>You cannot take a measurement without an instrument and when that
>instrument is conciouness itself you have some issues.
Sure, and epidemiology and psychology have been dealing with this sort of thing for a long time, do you not think we consider this sort of stuff. Heck, even in my old field of blood pressure research we had to consider it (as mental state affected blood pressure and the reproducibility of certain blood pressure tests we ran).
[snip]
>Okay, just a couple of things. I'm an engineer of sorts, not a
>scientist, but I don't like being classed as a 'non-scientist'.
But you aren't a scientist. I'm not an engineer of any kind, even though some of my best friends are engineers and I understand engineering principles, and could even build a small structure after reading the appropriate books and borrowing the appropriate tools, but I am still very much a non-engineer.
>You
>don't have to be a practising scientist to understand and respect the
>scientific method (and not all practising scientists do so).
But you _do_ have to be a practicing scientists to understand the intracies
of setting up controls for experiments in your discipline, what it means
to have your grant proposal assessed (which comes back to your claim " someone
can't come along and say 'do it without that bit'." this also happens in
grant assessments), and submitting your work to per-review.
If you are not a practicing scientists these latter aspects are poorly appreciated
(or even known) and can come as a bit of a shock. People exposed to peer-review
who have no experience of it often find it challenging and sometimes feel
that they are being personally attacked. In my experience, engineers are
particularly vulnerable.
>So
>please do not class humanity into scientists and non-scientists (or
>at least provide the rules for making such a distinction).
Practising professional (in the same way that we are divided into dentists
and non-dentists, even though some of us non-dentists have pulled teeth).
>Additionally, what you are recounting is just a standard problem that
>we have always had with any testing (scientific or otherwise). That
>problem in principle being that if you tighten up a test so that
>there are no false positives you are (probably) going to get a lot of
>false negatives. If you loosen it up to get no false negatives,
>you'll (likely) get large numbers of false positives. I think you
>know this.
No, I am making a different point about the kinds of things we take as proof, and how testing can impinge on the people tested.
>So, puh-lease, let's drop this scientist/non-scientist sctick. It
>doesn't wash and is somewhat patronising and quite elitist.
>Address the argument, not the source of it.
You have missed the point completely.
On 15/1/2003, Chris Lawson opened a new thread with:Zero Sum replied
OK, it's about time there was some actual information in this thread.
The rules of the Randi Challenge are at:
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
A brief perusal will show that there have been several misunderstandings circulating:
(A) Randi does NOT demand the copyright of the testing. He simply demands "that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose." That is, he does not have the right to stop the applicant from
using the information, but he insists on the right to use that material himself. I cannot understand how this could be considered unreasonable. You want him to test you, give you a million bucks, and then deny him the right to publish the data?
(B) The only other legal issue is that the applicant must indemnify Randi against being sued -- this is clearly to prevent the spoonbenders of this world failing the test and then suing Randi if he dares to publicise the results of the testing.
Otherwise the rest of the rules are simply rules of testing. And Randi has clearly stated that each applicant's purported ability must be tested in a manner that both parties find acceptable. In Randi's words, "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging
process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the claimant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set." In other words, the results must be such that there can be no doubt as to whether the test has succeeded or failed, and the experimental design is worked out *with* the applicant.
I'm afraid I can't see these rules as too harsh. They are, in fact, much *less* stringent than the standard rules of scientific publication, with one exception. That exception is that the results must be clear-cut. In science, it is not uncommon for uncertain results to be published. But then, unlike a scientific paper, Randi has to front up $1M, so of course he's going to want proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than a mere possibility. Secondly, there is a difference between what Randi is proposing and what happens in a science journal. Science journals don't publish papers as incontrovertible proof of theories; they publish papers that are interesting, and one example is Einstein's paper in relativity, published in 1905, but still considered so controversial that it *wasn't*
the work that won his Nobel Prize in 1921. In other words, nearly 20 years after Einstein's paper was published, the general scientific community had not accepted it. Because Randi has $1M on the line, he's going to want a higher standard of proof than the usual scientific paper requires for publication.
Which is another thing: any person with paranormal powers who doesn't like Randi's challenge is still free to submit themselves to a proper control trial and gather data. You don't *need* Randi if you don't like his rules. But have you noticed how the psychics don't say "I don't like Randi's rules, but I'll submit my powers to a proper experiment from someone else?" Of course not. They're too busy making money to bother with a trifling $1M (now chump change for the most successful ones) that might just show them up as being ordinary joes.
Now, Geoff, I know we had this discussion before, but if you want to test your dowsing abilities, *please* try to think of a way that meets basic scientific criteria. Many members of this list tried to come up with a basic experimental design, but you felt that the very presence of skepticism would damage your ability to dowse.
I have a couple of thoughts on this matter. The first is, this means you are actually trying to test two hypotheses:
(i) that dowsing works better than random, and
(ii) that skeptical observers reduce the effectiveness of dowsing.
There are, in fact, ways of dealing with both hypotheses in the one experiement. But it's complicated.
In the end, you're going to have to make a decision. Either there is a way of testing your dowsing scientifically, in which case let's do it... or there isn't a way, in which case you need to abandon your hopes of convincing skeptical people like myself. That doesn't mean I'm going to demean you. I have the utmost respect for people who can say "I believe this. I can't prove it. I wish I could, but I can't." The only thing that damages my respect for such people is when they continue to say either "but
please give me money", or "anyone who doesn't accept my unprovable powers is a narrow-minded bigot." Since you have not asked for money, and have not insisted that people believe your dowsing ability without evidence, then you have nothing to fear from me.
If you want to test yourself, and can think of a design to do so, I would be delighted to help. And if you pass it, I would encourage you to try the Australian Skeptics Prize, and if you pass that, then on to the Randi. If you can't think of a design, then why get mad at Randi? His interest is in *demonstrable* powers. If you can't demonstrate it under scientific conditions, then you might as well object to not being eligible for the Pulitzer Prize because you write music instead of text.
And another point: you say you were intially doubtful about dowsing until your friend/colleague showed you it in action. You also say that dowsing doesn't work when skeptics are watching. So how did your friend's demonstration work? If you were skeptical, then it should have failed. If it succeeded, it must have been because you weren't skeptical and didn't apply scientific conditions, in which case history tells us there is a strong chance of you unintentionally interpreting the results much more favourably than they deserved.
I don't write this in order to attack you or your belief. I write this in order to ask how *you* know that you can dowse. If you say "I know because I believe it", then fair enough, but you shouldn't get upset with skeptics who choose to differ. If you say "I know because I have seen it work", then there should be no reason why you shouldn't be able to show it working to other people. If you say "I have seen it work, but never when a skeptic is watching", then I would be wondering about the prospect of self-delusion about it. Not in the psychiatric sense, just in the sense that we *all* fool ourselves into seeing patterns that aren't there and being selective in our memory. One example of this is the glucometer (a subject close to your heart). The introduction of glucometers with memories has been a quiet revolution in the management of diabetes. When it was up to the person to write their own results down, fudging and selective reporting were a major problem. This was not deliberate in most cases. Now that the glucometers store weeks of data onboard, we have a better idea of people's real diabetic control.
What I'm trying to say is that so long as you feel the very presence of skeptics damages your dowsing ability, I am inclined to think of it as evidence of the glucometer effect. "I only keep my sugar down when I use a glucometer without an electronic memory." This isn't meant as a sign of
disrespect. If you believe that, fine. It doesn't bother me. But if you want me to believe it too, then I have three problems:
This just doesn't work on skeptics. Of course we're not going to accept it. Again, that doesn't matter if all you're asking is that I accept that your
- you can't demonstrate it to me,
- you can't provide a theoretical explanation that would make me think there was something to your ability, and
- you are asking me to accept yet another bizarre hypothesis (that skepticism interferes with your ability) in order to explain the first two problems.
belief is honest. I believe it. I t's only when you try to convince me of the actual real-world application of this ability that I'm going to want evidence. And that's what Randi is doing. He's asking for evidence that isn't easily fudgeable. This may seem harsh, but there are people out there right now making money out of their "powers". And he is offering $1M. If you don't like the rules, then ignore him. Getting angry at him and accusing him of riding a gravy train is beside the point (and incorrect;
there's a lot more money to be made in paranormal claims than in debunking).
> (A) Randi does NOT demand the copyright of the testing. He simply
> demands "that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
> gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in
> any way that Mr. Randi may choose."
> (B) The only other legal issue is that the applicant must indemnifyThen let the restriction be only that. Unconditionally agreeing not to sue is a blank cheque. You know how the media can cut and paste to produce completely disparate impressions.
> Randi against being sued -- this is clearly to prevent the
> spoonbenders of this world failing the test and then suing Randi if
> he dares to publicise the results of the testing.
> Otherwise the rest of the rules are simply rules of testing. ... Because Randi has $1M onThere is another difference. You use the word yourself. "Theories". By and large experiments in the scientific community are designed to prove (support) or disprove (show more unlikely) a particular theory.
> the line, he's going to want a higher standard of proof than the
> usual scientific paper requires for publication.
> Which is another thing: ... but I'll submit my powers toMe?
> a proper experiment from someone else?"
> Of course not. ...but you felt that the very
> presence of skepticism would damage your ability to dowse.
> I have a couple of thoughts on this matter. The first is, this meansIt is worse than that in two ways.
> you are actually trying to test two hypotheses: (i) that dowsing
> works better than random, and (ii) that skeptical observers reduce
> the effectiveness of dowsing. There are, in fact, ways of dealing
> with both hypotheses in the one experiement. But it's complicated.
>
> In the end, you're going to have to make a decision. ..
> If you want to test yourself, and can think of a design to do so, II don't disagree with that. I'm not mad at Randi. I just don't think the situation is level. What I'm saying is that the "undemonstrable" gets thrown out or coloured with the same brush. Which may (most often is) be valid, but is not always so.
> would be delighted to help. And if you pass it, I would encourage
> you to try the Australian Skeptics Prize, and if you pass that, then
> on to the Randi. If you can't think of a design, then why get mad at
> Randi? His interest is in *demonstrable* powers. If you can't
> demonstrate it under scientific conditions, then you might as well
> object to not being eligible for the Pulitzer Prize because you
> write music instead of text.
> And another point: you say you were intially doubtful about dowsing
> until your friend/colleague showed you it in action. You also say
> that dowsing doesn't work when skeptics are watching. So how did
> your friend's demonstration work? If you were skeptical, then it
> should have failed.
> If it succeeded, it must have been because you weren't skeptical andNo, apparently the more aggressive a skeptic the more easily they can do it. A bit like the easiest people to hypnotise being the most intelligent I suppose.
> didn't apply scientific conditions, in which case history tells us
> there is a strong chance of you unintentionally interpreting the
> results much more favourably than they deserved.
> What I'm trying to say ...: (i) you can't demonstrate it to me,
> (ii) you can't provide a theoretical explanation that would make meIt is possible that I could. But it is fantasyland really. We don't know enough about how the universe works and the mechanisms I would propose would be pulling a long bow, require a considerable suspension of disbelief. I'm not claiming to understand it all.
> think there was something to your ability,
> and (iii) you are asking me to accept yet
> another bizarre hypothesis (that skepticism interferes with your
> ability) in order to explain the first two problems.
> This just doesn't work on skeptics. ..
>From a purely conventional viewpoint, and incorporating the points above, how would you _want_ to go about testing a dowser?
