Perhaps the OP should have phrased the question as, “Have ghosts been observed by science?”.
Geller never did that.
Targ & Puthoff have demonstrated that they were not ‘credible’ by any stretch of the imagination.
[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
The problem there is that the records can themselves be statistically misleading.
[quote]
The skeptics’ stance on the board is that Randi’s test is something to be celebrated.
I’m saying that, before we celebrate, we need to see the cases: the rejects (more than test-takers I suspect) and then the cases of the failures (100% thus far, obviously).
Without this info, why are we assuming that Randi is doing a good job with this?
All that you’re saying about statistics is true but is not answering my point here.
Anything on the web to read?
The write-up says nothing of the kind. Given that Randi has talked dwosers downs from complete success rates to those merely well above chance in the past (see FLim-Flam) I seriosuly doubt what you claim is true.
No, merely requires more statistical baseline work. Syliva Brown is technically a medium, Randi has not rejected her, its the other way round.
Again, untrue.
Strawman based on a false premise
Why? Becuase when the dowser failed he would not have any legitimate excuses about things affecting his dowsing. He just demonstrated his ability to dowse without problems in an open test. I’m sorry, but if you don’t get the need for an open test, there’s no hope for you.
Randi now has a list of what is rejected, these include the subject of the letter you have most likely read. The challenger in that case was a Bteatharian who claimed to not require food. Randi has tested these int he past, and they require a lot of time and effort (and they caught the guy buying cheeseburgers) for what is simply a ‘beytond ludicrous’ claim. Furthermore, starvation is a risk and falls under a dangerous category that can be rejected.
They’re working on it:
Its not like they have infinite resources. These things do take time and effort, and the JREF doesn’t have a hoard of employees.
I’m not making any claim. I said, Show me the cases.
Show me the cases.
You try to knock me on a couple other points but I don’t see the effort to dialog. All I meant about the percentages is that, despite what both Randi and the applicant may agree on, you can’t claim that people have truly failed when they haven’t. Again, show me the cases.
Who are you arguing against? What you are saying here has nothing to do with what I’ve said. I’m saying that the dowser in question seemed like a clueless dimwit. I’ve said nothing about whether the tests should be open or not.
I have little doubt that the vast majority of stuff is rejected fairly: crackpots and lunatics.
That’s better, I guess, but even that is susceptible to further pedantry: Science doesn’t “observe” anything, people do. Science is merely a process agreed by many of those people whereby a claim is shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt by trying as hard as possible to falsify it, based on those observations.
This thread is about the history of the challenge, and I’m not exactly heartened by the lack of solid information.
I honestly think the “hero” could do a little better.
The post in that thread by Skeptic is very telling:
I note also that *Peter Morris is still tilting at his semantic windmills over there, after the SDMB got rather tired of his pedantry.
And the entire Challenge Forum appears to allocate a thread to each new applicant. What are you complaining about?
The rabbit hole just gets deeper. KRAMER says he’s done what? one applicant in six months or so. It sounds like all the applicants are nutjobs.
I don’t envy them the work they’re doing, and I have little doubt that they have to deal with nutsos that deserve the circular file. But they really ought to be testing more people, more serious sane people, and putting their cases on-line.
You see, although I disagree with Randi ultimately, I don’t necessarily disagree with him on even a majority of the cases.
Well, the point seems to be that after some correspondance (any significant content of which is openly available) the vast majority of applicants don’t feel it would be worthwhile taking the actual test. Hence the last serious one who agreed to a test being six months ago, when the Challenge Threads weren’t yet active.
If any of the current nutjobs agree to and subsequently are tested, the record of the entire process will be there for all to see.
What’s there thus far is interesting reading, at any rate.
So Peter Morris used to post here too? He does seem a little overcombative.
In principle, sure (if we set aside the metaphysical question of whether the existence of real world itself can be “proven”). If a ghost does various ghostly tricks in the presence of recording gear and trained observers (professional magicians are the preferred choice, since they know how one would fake this stuff), it could produce evidence until any alternative explanation anybody can think of are harder to believe than the existence of the ghost.
Actually the account doesn’t say how many he needed to get right to get the million.
The dowser himself states he dowses perfectly (bolding mine):
“He said he had** always been successful ** in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically “tuned” to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip.”
Also from Randi’s site:
“Most dowsers claim 100% accuracy. Very few claim anything less than 90%.”
Well I can tell that you are an intelligent person with a sense of humour.
You sometimes worry about money, and there is (or has been a member) of your family whose health worries you.
I am also getting the name of someone dear to you. It begins with an R (or a B).
You would like to contact someone who has passed to the other side, and luckily I can do this for you. Just give me your money.
Oh look! I’m a medium.
Because all the above was true, right?
So I have proved, beyond all doubt, that I can speak to the dead.
Now you know why Randi wants an objective test.
From Randi’s site:
Note by Randi: before any of that takes place, we have to (a) get the claimant to state clearly what he/she can do, under what conditions, and with what accuracy. This, as Andrew Harter at the JREF will verify, is often the very hardest thing for us to ascertain. Then, as stated in the rules, we have to (b) conduct a preliminary test - with much less stringent conditions and much more attainable percentages of success. Please also note that to date, no one has successfully completed a preliminary test.
http://www.randi.org/jr/07-30-2000.html
SO the claimant is asked what they can do, and at what accuracy level.
If you claim you can detect the sex of an unborn baby with a 51% success rate, just how paranormal are you?!
And where does Randi say that?
Do you know what a strawman is?
The guy’s talent was identical to chance. No dowser has ever achieved 90% in a test.
Oh dear.
Here is why every applicant practices:
"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.”
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html
Perhaps you’d like to show us the original application letter.
Meanwhile here’s a sample of what Randi gets:
"A would-be applicant wrote to me:
I’m going to make this a little less formal.
I’m not getting why you’re not understanding the questions, I thought I have been making them clear. I apologize if it seems as if I’ve been wasting your time.
How would you test someone who has random dreams of the future, but doesn’t know what dreams will come true until they actually occur?"
He also had the problem of dealing with ‘Breatharians’, who can live on air and sunlight.
How would you test this claim?
What is someone started dying of starvation?
glee. I don’t think we really have an argument going. I read what you wrote, and it seemed to make sense.
Quite clearly, there is no phrasing of any kind that will not be susceptible on some level. People may, for example, simply ignore it. Even given that existence is a metaphysical claim, there are people who will simply ignore that fact and argue endlessly over the whole question of science and existence as though they were arguing over Elvis’s pee, or angels on a pin. As evidence, I offer this thread. We have yet to hear from anyone specifically, but possibly among the lurkers there is someone who, having discerned the sheer logic of the argument that science can determine nothing about existence (including the question of whether it exists itself), has changed his mind, as people who are both honest and love reason are wont to do.
I leave for my morning class and look where this thread goes…
I think it’s in the hands of much better minds than my own now. 
As Randi has said many times, the people who apply for the test mostly fall into one of two categories:
-
“Nutsos” as you call them. People who are simply delusional. See the threads at Randi’s forums concering http://alienrockwherediditcomefrom.com , with someone who goes by the forum user name DALTON.
-
Dowsers. They really believe they have these powers, and are truly surprised when they fail the controlled tests.
For the most part, no one else even applies. Why? The simple answer I can think of is that they know they’re lying. You say that Randi ought to be testing more people, but they have to apply for the test.
Or they may simply be bored to tears with the persistent masturbatory ramblings of an unregenerate epistemic relativist. I wouldn’t construe silence as tacit approval; rather I would entertain the distinct possibility the “lurkers” have no interest in joining the circle-jerk.