Actually it is still going, and there is a result from one Astral Projector.
I’m sorry you feel testing is tedious. I realise that anecdotes are more interesting, but do they prove anything?
“All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.”
“EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration.”
I suppose you mean this test:
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html
I find it staggering that you say about this ‘The point, however, is that that test terms were in no way fair, nor could they be taken seriously by anyone with an understanding of probability.’
Did you even read it?
“For the “open” phase of the preliminary test procedure, the target package was placed in the designated cup, which was then openly placed in the spot Mike had chosen for it, mouth-down. He then scanned all ten cups, and declared — both by pointing and verbally — where he believed that his stick had detected the target. Another number was then selected, and the procedure was repeated, twenty times in all. His score was 100% in these “open” tests.”
So the dowser has scored 100% in 20 tests.
That’s 100%.
And the dowser stated that his power had achieved this.
Yet you base your calculations on a chance of 1 in 10.
Why? 100% is 10/10. Do you know what chance 10 correct guesses is, at 100% a guess?
And why did these tests take place?
"Let me explain here the purpose of the baseline test of twenty “open” detections, in which the location of the target is known in advance. It served five distinct purposes, which is why we always use such a procedure:
(1) The performer has the opportunity to try out the setup, and make any necessary changes, adjustments, or re-locations that he thinks are needed. Mr. G. changed the location of the ten cups on the floor many times before the “open” detection trials were completed, and finally declared his total satisfaction with the placements, and with the conditions.
(2) The process of randomizing numbers, etc., which is sometimes unfamiliar or unknown to the performer, becomes clear. For Mike, we prepared ten cards bearing numbers from one to ten, shuffled them face-down, and asked him to choose one for each test.
(3) The performer becomes familiar with the sequences and rules of the test. With Mike, we changed only one factor: we began with plastic cups, but because of the bulk of the target package, we switched to using the JREF coffee mugs.
(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the “open” tests — whether it’s his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.
(5) After the “blind"test is done, following the “open” series, the performer cannot offer the excuse that his powers were not working at this time. Mike obtained 100% results during the “open” test, quickly and positively, showing that he was quite able to use his powers.”
So the dowser is satisfied his powers are operating.
Next came another series of tests:
"Following the “open” sequence, for each of the “blind” tests, Mr. G. and I stepped out of the library area, and two other persons randomly (by choosing a face-down card, as before) placed the target package in position, then they left the area and informed us that the target was in place. Mike and I re-entered, alone, and he made his determination while I watched carefully to be sure that he did not nudge any cups, or otherwise attempt to use any means but the movements of his forked stick, to make his guess; at no time was any such procedure observed. After Mike made his guess on each trial, the other two persons were invited back in, and we recorded the results. That procedure was repeated ten times. "
And our scientific conclusion is:
“The results were that when Mike G. knew the location of the concealed target (the “open” tests), he obtained 100% results. When the test procedure was double-blinded, he obtained exactly what chance alone would call for: one out of ten correct.”
Do you understand anything about probability?
Do you understand anything about scientifc testing?
Glee, what are you doing? Do you have some new information, or do you just want to pick through people’s arguments from many months ago?
If the second, why do you believe this merits resurrecting a couple of particularly long and convoluted zombie threads?
Um, I’m posting to a message board.
Which rule am I breaking? 
Why are you responding to a couple of particularly long and convoluted zombie threads?
Don’t you have anything better to do? 
But if you are being serious:
-
I started a thread on Astral Viewing a while back. A poster on this thread gave a dismissive description of my thread which I corrected.
-
another poster had given a wildly inaccurate description of a test conducted by James Randi. Since our motto is ‘Dispelling Ignorance’, I tackled the matter, including a link and a cite.
I’ve been away for a while (first work, then deciding whether to pay). Now I’m back. 
Welcome back!
Thank you! 
No rules, just common sense. The conversation was over months ago. It’s like ringing up a friend you haven’t seen in years, just to correct his pronunciation of “bon voyage” as he waved goodbye at the airport. It’s pointless.
You want a new discussion on astral projection etc? You have new info? So start a new discussion, or post this new info. Don’t resurrect stuff just so you can make a quick, relatively unimportant point or two. It’s just bad form.
Form over function?
I just love people who “should” all over me, don’t you, glee?
Common sense.
Common sense.
From a cultural/social anthropological perspective, there is no such thing as “common sense.” What is called “common sense” is a tightly bound set of sub-cultural rules distributed by the ‘ruling classes’ which are used to put down those who are not a part of that class. A form of sub-class racism (classism?) using the illusory “commonality” that is a construction of the ruling classes.
Probably it is a good idea to start a new thread at this point rather than making this thread a new record in page length…
well, what the f***. I’m born to break rules. Tell me more, glee!
(Sig withheld at Czarcasm’s request)
Maybe it’s better now then when I visited it.
And yes, anecdotes prove experience, and experience is the foundation of discovery.
Testing is not tedious, arguing is.
S¬
Hmmmm. 37 days is now “months.”
Just how many months is that, chops? 1.2? or does it depend on whether we are talking 28, 29, 30 or 31 day months?
Months. When you say it that way I expect at least 3 months!
What do they call this, “spin?” “Exaggeration?” I know there’s a good descriptive term…
Are you a politician?
Hey, it went from April to May, it’s now July. That’s a couple of months. I stand by what I said. I’m not going to post any more in this thread, though, in the hopes that it will sink back where it came from. See you later.
Indeed.
And note that my post giving links and cites to completely refute a previous allegation was described by somebody as ‘relatively unimportant’.
Whereas that somebody has posted twice since - once to tell me not to post here and once to announce he’s not posting anymore.
Gosh, that must be important! :rolleyes:
glee, I’m confused. (normal state of being) I responded to a “bonzer” whom I can no longer find, did you change names? Or is this about something else?
Please re-state any allegations, cites, etc., so we can continue without confusion.
S¬