As I recall the argument (and feel free to correct me), it was someone besides peter morris who raised the issue by arguing or suggesting that (1) the dowsers had agreed to the averaging; and (2) this agreement justified Randi’s comments.
So it appears to me that it’s someone else who’s “clouding the issue.”
Peter, you’re the one playing word games. I’m not claiming that “Randi’s actions were not according to agreement “ means b rather than a, I’m claiming that it means a or b. I said “You said that Randi’s actions were not according to agreement. Logically, that means that either there was no agreement as to how the results would evaluated, or that Randi broke the agreement.” It is obvious to anyone that in that context, “Randi’s actions were not according to agreement” means either a or b. If I were to ask 10 people, I expect at least seven of them to agree with me (allowing for a few people like you). You quoted just the first sentence, and evaluated it completely out of context. In context, it is clear what it means. Your only complaint seems to be that I did not use the exact same words as you did, and you’re going on and on about it as if it means that now you’ve “won”. And yet you dismiss attributing a quote to the wrong person as “minor”. You seem to be playing a bizarre game of “gotcha” in which only you get to score points: you say “Randi did it without agreement”, I say that you said “Randi’s actions were not according to agreement”. You jump up and down shouting “Ha! Got you! You didn’t use the exact same words!” Meanwhile you completely ignore all the points that I made in my last post. This seems to be your MO: you seize on some detail, ignore any other point the poster has made, and then claim that they don’t have anything worthwhile to say.
I’ll tell you what: suppose I were to pose your suggested question, but add c) it could mean either and d) it doesn’t mean either. Could you still promise me that 99% will say that a) is the best answer?
You misunderstand. I did not claim that peter was clouding the issue by bringing up the question of whether this was part of the agreement. The issue of whether it was part of the agreement is important. peter morris’ claim that it was not part of the agreement is relevant claim. It is not, however, a supported claim. peter has not provided a single piece of evidence in support. The closest he’s come is implying that some unnamed “mathematicians” said so (despite the fact that being a mathematician does not make one an authority on what Randi has or has not done). Mr. Miskatonic challenged him on that point, asking “Please cite the Mathematicians that accuse Randi of cheating on his agreed protocol.” peter then launched into the nitpick as to whether “cheating” was an appropriate word. That’s what I mean by “clouding” the issue. peter has completely avoided providing any sort of cite, either for his claim regarding mathematicians, or for his primary claim that combining scores was not part of the agreement. He has drawn attention away from this fact by diverting the discussion to what exactly his claim is, saying that he said that combining was not in the agreement rather than not combining was in the agreement (see how silly this is?). If he simply wants to set the record straight as to what exactly he’s claiming, I can understand and accept that. But he has done so in a confrontational manner, and he done so instead of supporting his position, rather than in addition to. Furthermore, both what he says his position is, and the characterization he takes issue with, are essentially the same. If there was an agreement which discussed how the results would be evaluated which did not mention combining the results, then not combining the results would be an implied part of the agreement. If there was no agreement was to how the results would be interpreted, that is a serious flaw in procedure, a flaw that I would be extremely surprised to discover. If peter is saying that there was no agreement whatsover (which he seems to be saying), that’s a serious indictment of Randi’s comptency, and I expect it to be substantiated. If he is saying that there was an agreement that specified a method other than combing the results, then that’s pretty much the same thing as saying that there was an agreement not to combine the results.
To break my original statement up: peter’s nitpick is distinguishing between whether it was against an agreement, or never agreed upon. Making this distinction, rather than to actually arguing the issue of whether Randi’s actions were inappropriate, is clouding the issue.
Not really. What you don’t seem to understand is that a confirming instance of an hypothesis can nevertheless undermine that hypothesis.
The classic example of this is the paradox of the 99-foot-man.
Let me illustrate: Suppose you make the claim that there isn’t and never will be a human being who is 100 feet tall or taller. And let’s suppose that you offer a reward - $1,000,000.00 – for anyone who is measured at 100 feet tall or taller.
One day, a 99 foot tall man comes by your office. You measure him, and of course he falls short and doesn’t get the million. Now, having seen the 99 foot tall man, are you more confident of your hypothesis or less confident? The answer is that you should be less confident. Even though you still haven’t had to pay out any reward money.
**
It seems to me that anyone who is trying to defend Randi’s conduct on the basis of an agreement has the burden of supplying that agreement. But in any event, the agreement is no more relevant than any hypothetical agreement signed by the 99-foot man – no matter what it says.
**
I think that if Mr. Miskatonic did this, then he is muddying the distinction between Randi’s agreement with his subjects and Randi’s conduct towards the public.
And what you don’t seem to understand is that a condescending explanation of “paradox” of which I was already aware does nothing to support your position. The fact that a comfirming instance of a hypothesis can undermine that hypothesis in no establishes that this particular instance of a confirmation undermines the hypothesis.
So Randi is guilty until proven innocent? That’s the sort of attitude that makes people dismiss peter as a crank.
That just shows you how little you understand statistics. Saying that the agreement is irrelevant is like saying that where the target was located is irrelevant to evaluating how good a shot an archer is. Without a prior agreement, you can not say anything for certain, other than simply repeating the statistics collected. All you can do is make subjective judgements like “well, I think the null hypothesis is suspect”. Evaluating statistics with reference to a prior agreement is to evaluating them without such an agreement what astronomy is to astrology, what chemistry is to alchemy. If you think something odd is going on, you can write your own agreement with the dowsers, perform your own tests, and then follow your agreement. Odd results make for hints as to where future research should be directed. It does not constitute evidence.
You haven’t presented any valid reason why that distinction matters. If the agreement existed, then there’s nothing wrong with Randi’s conduct towards the public. Besides, look at what Mr. M was responding to:
Looking at the red section, peter implies that he accepts that there was an agreement, but it did not include the procedure in question. Looking at the blue section, peter implies that Randi is lying about the agreement. Lying in this context is pretty much the same as cheating, and “agreement” means pretty much the same thing as “protocol”, hence the request “Please cite the Mathematicians that accuse Randi of cheating on his agreed protocol.” I don’t see any muddying there: peter is accusing Randi of lying about the agreement, and Mr. M is asking for a cite. If any muddying is going on, it’s being done by peter, who has gone from accusing Randi of inappropriately combining the numbers to accusing him of lying. I can’t imagine how you would think that the issue of what the agreement is is irrelevant to the question of whether Randi is lying about it.
He then replies “I never said that. Please quote accurately. Mathematicians say that Randi was wrong to combine the results, not that he broke the agreement.” But looking at his quote, is quite clearly implying that there is some group of mathematicians saying that Randi is lying about the agreement. And when called for a cite, he simply denies saying that.
Right, so the real question to debate is whether the hypothesis is undermined or not by the evidence in question. This is what you fail to grasp.
**
Perhaps what Randi did is ok, and perhaps it isn’t. But anyone who claims that a piece of paper justifies what he did should produce a cite. Or try a different argument.
**
Oh really? So if I tell Randi that I can call a coin flip 90% of the time; and he flips a coin 10,000 times; and I’m right 85% of the time, the results are not evidence of paranormal abilities?
It might be, but if you agreed to the winning percentage being 90% you would not win the money. There would be some ‘splainin’ to do about that 85% figure.
However, nothing like this has come close to happening.
Agree.
**
Probably true.
I’ve just been having a read. Misk and The Ryan, I’m certainly not going to get involved in any major way but I can’t help commenting that you are letting Peter get away with being an Emporer who, in substance, has no clothes, by arguing incessantly with him (and now amongst yourselves) over whether or not the bandage on his little toe constitutes “clothes”. Just accept there is a goddam bandage on Peter’s little toe, and then concentrate on whether that really means he is not naked, ferchrissakes!
This is your ‘evidence’?
The psychic in question is called Sylvia Browne. She has appeared a number of times on ‘Larry King Live’. (This US TV show is watched by millions of people, so it doesn’t really matter whether you’ve heard of her.)
She claims to be psychic and earns a lot of money doing readings for breaved people.
(I don’t know why you describe her as an ‘alleged psychic’ - do you not believe her claims to be able to speak to the dead?).
She was challenged to take a test for the Randi million dollars and agreed to do so.
Time passed, but finally she agreed the protocol for the test with Randi on Sep 3, 2001.
Since then, silence from Sylvia.
The counter is to show that she is ducking the challenge, and has done so for 716 days.
So your effort above is full of holes.
The psychic has accepted the challenge, and agreed the testing arrangements.
The money is in place, but the psychic has refused either to be tested, or to give any reason for her delay.
I look forward to your cite giving ‘the continual statements by Randi and his fans that failure to be tested by Randi is in itself proof that she’s a fraud.’
I look forward to your cite that ‘It has to be Randi, and nobody else, that tests her.’
And this is supposed to prove that ‘Randi declres himself to be the only game in town’?
And the inappropriateness of condescension is what you fail to grasp.
That’s ridiculous. The burden of proof lies with the person making the original claim (“Randi’s actions were inappropiate”), not the person responding to it. I don’t see how “Randi realeased all of the scores combined, and I don’t have a cite one way or the other as to whether that was according to agreement” is much of an indictment.
It would be misleading to assign any probabilities to the event. Sure, subjectively it looks like something besides chance is going on, but there is no objective conclusion that can be reached, other than you got it right 85% of the time (and you have a lot of free time). You’re trying to lead me down a slippery slope: first get me to agree to 85%, and then work on 22%. As a human being, 22% means a little. 85% means a lot. But as a statistician, neither means shit if the target is 90%. These rules are there for a reason. When you use such a large number as 8500 out of 10000, it’s hard to see the reason. But if you’re allowed to use extreme examples to make my position seem absurd, then I should allowed to respond it kind. Suppose we allow probabilities to be calculated after the statistics are gathered. Let’s take 10 random numbers between 1 and 10:
3
5
8
2
5
10
2
5
10
10
The probability of getting a number as low as 3 is 30%. Then 50% for 5, 80% for 8, etc. The overall probability (the product of the individual probabilites) is .000086, or 86 in a million. So is something supernatural going on? Or am I just playing games with numbers?
And even if the water dowser results are important, that doesn’t mean that the total scores aren’t. Randi is under no obligation to find the interpretation of the data least favorable to him.
You seem to have something against combining numbers. Does this aversion apply only between different types of dowsers, or does it also apply within a type? Was it wrong of peter to combine the scores of all the water dowsers together?
Anyway, you haven’t even addressed my central point: peter morris claimed than Randi was lying. When challenged, he said “that’s not what I said”. This is just one example of his dishonesty.
To Ryan:
In fact, pal, you are the one obsessing about a totally trivial argument about the meaning odf a particular phrase. It has no importance to me. Get over it.
You are just trying to distract attention aways from the things you can’t answer.
To Glee:
Do you?
What part of <<who, btw, I’ve never heard of, she’s unknown in my country>> don’t you understand? I can make no judgement about her claims because I have never seen her in action, and I won’t judge from Randi’s one-sided snide attacks on her.
But, as I keep saying, I am a sceptic in these things, I don’t believe any claims without proof. And it takes a lot of proof to back up claims of speaking to the dead.
Try and get your head around this concept, its quite easy. Its called ‘open-mindedness.’ You might try it sometime.
Maybe I was condescending and maybe I wasn’t. Doesn’t change my basic point though.
**
Let’s see if I understand your position: Are you saying that if you have the burden of proving X; and you make an argument in favor of X; and I claim that piece of paper Y shows that you are wrong, I have no obligation to produce Y, since you have the burden of proof?
**
Interesting that you choose to evade the question.
**
No, I’m trying to show that your generalization is incorrect. The reality is that one must look at experimental results in light of reason and common sense.
And it’s also worth keeping in mind that the appropriate predetermined criteria for a controlled experiment are not necessarily the same as the appropriate criteria for a test with a large monetary reward.
**
This is a very telling quote, because it shows that you understand at some level that Randi is a partisan, an advocate.
**
Not at all. Feel free to quote me where I have suggested so.
**
Possibly. I have no thoughts on that point.
**
Nope, I haven’t addressed that point. And I don’t really have the patience to go wading back through the thread and offer an opinion on that issue.
I’m not a sock for Peter Morris. If he’s right, he’s right. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. On the “agreement” issue, he’s right – In my humble opinion, of course.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**Maybe I was condescending and maybe I wasn’t. Doesn’t change my basic point though.
If included in X is the implication not Y, then yes.
It’s interesting that you choose to mischaracterize my post. What color is the number 5? And don’t tell me the question is meaningless; that would be evading the question.
What generalization?
Look, I’m not saying that statistical analysis is the only method of making decisions. I’m just saying that if one chooses to do statistical analysis, one should do it right. If, on the other hand, one is making an argument solely on the basis of “reason and common sense”, then one should make the argument on that basis, and not make it seem that one is doing statistical analysis in a situation in which it is not valid.
And it’s also worth keeping in mind that the appropriate predetermined criteria for a controlled experiment are not necessarily the same as the appropriate criteria for a test with a large monetary reward.
Duh.
You don’t actually come out and say it, but you certainly imply that Randi’s conduct was inappropiate.
What exactly is he right about? He’s certainly not right about his claim of not calling Randi a cheat. Or about me being the one obsessing over the meaning of a phrase. Look, this is a guy who ducked an issue by nitpicking the difference between “against the agreeent” and “not in the agreement”, and then claimed that**I[//b] was one obseessing over a trivial argument to avoid what I couldn’t answer. I don’t see why you’re trying so hard to find some point on which he is correct, when he is so obviously divorced from reality.
Ah, yes, more insults.
Honestly, the standard of my opponents make me weep sometimes.
I have no idea what this means - care to explain?
**
I didn’t mischaracterize your post at all. You made a claim – that any results that don’t pass the agreed criteria between Randi and his subject are not evidence of paranormal abilities. I used an extreme example to show that your claim is false.
It’s that simple.
**
You claimed, in essence, that any results that don’t pass the agreed criteria between Randi and his subject are not evidence of paranormal abilities.
You think that those words suggest that I’m “against combining numbers”?!? Do you honestly believe that?
**
My only claim about Randi’s conduct is that he seems to have an agenda. And you seem to agree with this.
**
He’s right on the point I’ve been arguing. I don’t care to offer an opinion on the other points.
**
As mentioned before, it seems to me that it’s folks other than Peter who tried to make an issue out of the “agreement” issue. If it’s not important, then why raise it? And if it is important, then what’s in the agreement arguably matters.
And meantime, Rome burns…
…as Randi fiddles the figures.
Peter morris claimed that Randi “fudged the numbers” in combining the numbers from the different trials. Inherent in that claim is the claim that that was not part of the agreement.
I don’t recall making such a claim.
Why would I say it if I didn’t? Peter morris referred to combing the numbers as “fudging”. You said that he was right. That does create the impression that you have something against combining numbers.
You make it sound so sordid. Oooh, he has an agenda. MLK Jr had an agenda. Mother Theresa had an agenda. Jesus had an agenda. People generally don’t raise a million dollars for the investigation of paranormal phenomena because they have no interest in the matter.
He’s right on the point you’re arguing? At let me guess, if I asked you where the Simpsons live, you’d tell me they live in the state in which the Simpsons live? What point have you been arguing?
People other than peter explicitly brought up the issue of the agreement. It was peter, however, that made a big deal out of the difference between “not in the agreement” and “against the agreement” (and is now lying about it in his pathetic attempt to claim victory).
Of course what’s in the agreement matters. You’re the one saying it doesn’t.
Wrong again. YOU are the one making a big deal of it, not me.
Get over it, for God’s sake.