I’m not sure if you have specific lottery results in mind, but I’ve never seen any lottery results that suggested that anyone had paranormal abilities.
I’d love to know why you think that your question is relevant to this debate.
Miskatonic - you claim that I’m ‘wrong’. Prove it.
Show me anywhere in Randi’s report where Randi shows the individual scores of each dowser. Not a statement that Randi told the dowsers their score, I want to see where he shared that information with us.
Q1) Who are you quoting?
Q2) Who made the claim that “it was only after the dowsers left that the water results were analysed?” certainly not me.
Q3) The results may have been told to the dowsers, but have they been made available to the public?
This is yet another case of you putting words in my mouth, then attacking the strawman you invented. I have NEVER claimed that “it was only after the dowsers left that the water results were analysed.” So, your attempt to prove that wrong are just a desperate attempt to save face.
You claimed that the dowsers agreed to have their results combined. I’m still waiting for you to either prove that statement, or to admit your error.
First prove otherwise. This is your assertion, remember?
Mike Hutchinson, author of the linked post. Friend of Randi and sometimes assistant.
No, it was not you., and the reply was not to you either. Howver, the comment applies to the claim you made above where:
Which the quote from Mike Hutchinson contradicts.
They would appear to have been made public in the article you linked . What exactly do you mean by “availbale to the public” and what would be satisfactory to your standards?
Your quote was (again)
"Actually, it was Randi that failed to give the results seperately."
Mike Hutchinson’s comment was in reply to someoner else, nontheless his comment certainly applies to your claim and contradicts it. Do you need to have this explained to you in smaller words?
In that case you should have no trouble quoting them.
well? I’m waiting.
No it does not.
Reminder : YOU, Miskatonic, made the claim <<But you didn’t give their results separately. >>
I pointed out that Randi failed to give the results seperately in his written report, so I can’t quote the information Randi hides.
You are just desperately trying to backtrack away from yet another wrong statement. The fact that Randi told the dowsers their scores does not change the facts. He failed to include that information in his written report. You chose to blame me for his failing.
Another insult. That’s the only argument you obsessive Randi nuts are capable of, isn’t it?
You claimed that the dowsers agreed to have their results combined. I’m still waiting for you to either prove that statement, or to admit your error.
“When the results were tabulated, 111 tries had been made, with an expected 10% success rate by chance alone, There were 15 successes, 13.5%, a figure well within expectation.
<…>
Looking at the tests on specific substances, the water tests showed 50 tests total with 11 correct or 22%. The dowsers claimed they would have 86% success. As for the brass tests, they claimed 87%—and got zero. Gold seemed more attractive, and they expected 99%, but obtained 11%.”
When asked to quote them, all you could do was present them as one statistic. You were unable to provide the seperate scores, which you claimed were in the report.
Yet again, you have been proved wrong. Are you going to admit it?
You claimed that the dowsers agreed to have their results combined. I’m still waiting for you to either prove that statement, or to admit your error. Put up or shut up.
" Looking at the tests on specific substances, the water tests showed 50 tests total with 11 correct or 22%. The dowsers claimed they would have 86% success. As for the brass tests, they claimed 87%—and got zero. Gold seemed more attractive, and they expected 99%, but obtained 11%"
What do you want? Raw data?
Randi told the dowsers the results of each individual test. He also listed to the results of each test “set” (i.e. gold, water, brass). He also gave the average for all three sets.
Ryan attacked me for failing to provide raw data. <<you didn’t give their results separately. You picked out the ones with the best results and presented just those, and presented them as one statistic>>
See there, Miskatonic, Ryan is accusing me of failing to give the raw data. Do you understand this, Miskatonic?
I pointed out that Randi had failed to provide the raw data, that he had combined them into one statistic, and not made the raw data available.
You, Miskatonic, then claimed that the raw data was in Randi’s report. <<They would appear to have been made public in the article you linked >>
I do indeed want you, Miskatonic, to prove your claim that the raw data Ryan asked for is available in Randi’s report. That is the claim you made, Miskatonic, and I want you to prove it. Or, to admit that you were wrong, and acknowledge that Ryan is a liar.
BTW, I notice that in an earlier post I mistakenly attributed Ryans words to you. Apologies for that.
And talking of admitting errors: You claimed that the dowsers agreed to have their results combined. I’m still waiting for you to either prove that statement, or to admit your error. Put up or shut up.
Well, too bad. Because it is an article. You’ll need to discuss that with Randi or Dick Smith.
If that’s the case then both of you are wrong. Randi announced and listed the sperate trials as well as a combined result. With Ryan I can attribute it to a mistake, with you it is pure malice.
Raw data does not appear in articles. See below.
No, I claim that did not fail to give the results serpately. “Results” does not equal “raw data”.
The words “Raw data” were never in Ryan post, nor yours, nor mine. Raw data does not appear in reports like the article in question. Raw data often does not even appear in final drafts of published science papers. TO expect otherwise is either foolish or childish. The words used were “results” which is well covered by what Randi listed (and I quoted). The results of each dowsing form was listed in the Randi article and announced at the event.
I will admit I was wrong, but that was only because I was defending an incorrect positon. As has since been shown, Randi did not “fudge the numbers” as you asserted. He reported and announced combined results, as well dowsing type results. Your complaint stems entirely from him mentionig the combined results, which can be seen as Randi not data mining sufficiently for your tastes.
How do you make that out then? Ryan made an untrue accusation against me, I proved him wrong, you tried to defend his position, but now admit that he was wrong, which makes you wrong too. How does it make me malicious, to successfully defend myself against your and Ryan’s petty personal attack?
The exact phrase Ryan used was “give their results separately” You, Miskatonic, failed to understand the term. You only understood it when “raw data” was substituted.
Indeed, and it was Ryan that demanded it. You are correct that Ryan’s demand was foolish.
Well, that’s what ‘wrong’ means.
As has been shown, Randi did indeed fudge the numbers. The only justification any Randi fan could produce was your claim that the dowsers agreed to it. Since even you now finally admit that was wrong, Randi’s interpretation of the results is complete rubbish.
You defended yourself with a comment that Randi was guilty of what Ryan accused you of. This was shown to be untrue.
Ryan made a mistake, and I can see how it was made. You on the other hand, made a further gross error in claiming that Randi did something which he in fact did not do.
Results does are not the same as raw data, Peter. And according to the quote you put in he did not demand anything resembling raw data.
Suit yourself.
No, this has not been shown. “Fudging the numbers” is a serious accusation. To do such a thing Randi would need to remove a successful dowser’s results, or claim a miss when there was a hit. This has not been demonstrated, and you complain still lies with him not data mining the way you want. You have claimed that mathematicians support you in this, but that simply is not true, As the thread you started shows
Several Mathematicians did agree with you over the odds calculation you did, but that had little to do with anything. Most just ignored the second part of your inquiry.
So what would the proper interpetation of the reuslts be, exactly? The water results were not 22% as he says? The gold was found despite what Randi says?
No, fudging the numbers simply means that - either dishonestly or through poor mathematical skills - he misrepresented the proper significance of the results. He had a 22% result, and played around with the figures to make it look like a 12% result. Fudging isn’t the same as falsifying.
The proper interpretation of the results is that the water dowsers scored 22%, not 12%, as Randi claimed. The water dowsers scored far above chance, not equal to chance as Randi claimed. Randi should have stated that the results would only occur by chance once in a hundred times. Instead he fudged the figures to make it look like an ordinary result.
Mea culpa. Okay, Randi said 13.5% not 12%. Its still a distortion to hide the true results. The 13.5% figure is meaningless, and is there to distract away from the 22% figure. Most people reading the report will see and remember the 13.5%, but not notice the 22% unless they are lookin very carefully.
My assertion is that anyone making an accusation which implies unfaithfulness to an agreement has the burden of proof as to what was in that agreement.
You seem obsessed with getting me to say that I am wrong, to the detriment of actually listening to what I’m saying. You have not shown me to be wrong, you have simply presented your opinion that I am. If you think that one of my statements was in error, you are welcome to quote it and explain how it is wrong. You have not done so.
I don’t recall him making such a statement. Rather, he denied the existance of the agreement.
If you make a big to-do about announcing that having an agreement doesn’t make combining numbers right, with no further elaboration, it is silly to be surprised when people get the impression that perhaps you have something against combing numbers.
What exactly is that claim of mine?
If a 1% is relevant, then surely 1 in a million is relevant. So if anyone has won the lottery (actually less likely than one in a million), then isn’t that evidence of paranormal ability? And if someone were to point out that millions entered the lottery but only one won, wouldn’t that be “fudging the numbers” by combining several tests?
Hm, deja vu – another thread in which Peter Morris does all he can to demonstrate what a fraud and trickster James Randi is. Peter’s methods, as in previous attempts, consist of latching on to a couple of feeble and obscure minutiae-based arguments while repeating the mantra “I’m right, Randi is a fraud” until bliss is achieved. Even if it takes several pages (6 so far!) of rebuttals from better-informed and very patient people.
What the hell did Randi do to you, Peter? I would really like to know. Do you have any other missions in life other than throwing mud at the fellow? Have you tried putting the dowsing rod aside and doing volunteer work to take your mind off him?
Look, you said "We already know that was some agreement. " So you seem to be saying that your logic applies ANYTIME it is known that there is an agreement. Correct? Please don’t evade the question.
**
That’s nonsense. You denied making a claim that was clearly incorrect. I quoted you exactly where you made the claim. Here it is again:
You were pretty clearly claiming that test results that do not satisfy the agreement between Randi and his subjects do not constitute evidence. This is incorrect.
**
Well, it’s pretty common on these boards for folks to “misunderstand” others repeatedly so they can attack strawmen which is generally easier than refuting a legitimate argument. So no, I’m not surprised.
**
Your claim that I took a position on “combining numbers.” Are you now denying that you made this claim?
**
Not really, because the odds that SOMEONE will win the lottery are pretty darn high. Besides, you didn’t include any assertion that the winner chose or claims to have chosen numbers through psychic means.
Perhaps, I’d have to think about it. But your point doesn’t seem relevant to anything I’ve said.
Yet again, I am making no such asccusation. I have never said that Randi ‘broke an agreement’ by combining the results of seperate tests, YOU are making that up.
What I have said is that Randi’s combining the results is mathematical nonsense.
To Abe
If you actuaklly read the thread, you will see that it’s the Randi fans that are doing that, not me. Just look at Ryan, desperately twisting words, to prove that I accused Randi of ‘breaking an agreement’ when I never said any such thing. Better informed and patient? I have yet to see any.
Oh, so because I fail to worship him with blind devotion he must have ‘done’ something to me?
Get real. I don’t hate him, its just that I have no respect for him.
I would like to see the dowsers given the opportunity to prove their claims in a fair test, but I see that Randi’s tests are deeply flawed. I comment on the falws in his tests, and the lies he tells, and the scientific goofs he spouts. Randi fanatics hate me for doing so.
You might spend 99% of your life in devotion to the man, personally he doesn’t mean that much to me. Itjust baffles me that anyone could take him seriously.
And here we see the desperate tactic of the Randi fans. I have said about 30 times that I don’t believe in dowsing. You cannot find any actual errors I make, so you lie, claim I’m a dowser, and attack that. So much easier to lie than actually addressing the points I raise, isn’t it.
No, I’m saying that the fact that there was an agreement is relevant.
No, I said that I didn’t remember making the claim. And I did not, in fact, make the claim that you seem to be saying I made. I was clearly talking about what evidence is in a statistical context, and your insistence that this is “weaselling” simply shows your unwillingness to accept any conclusion other than that I am wrong.
Prove it.
What was the exact wording?
And the probablity that SOMEONE will have a dowsing performance with a p-value of 1% are pretty darn high, too. I’m sure that there are several thousand people who claim to be dowsers. If they all took a test, we’d expect dozens to have results even more impressive than these.
How is that relevant? If you’re going to accept post hoc evidence in one case, why not post hoc evidence in another?
peter morris
You are the one making things up. I said “anyone making an accusation which implies unfaithfulness to an agreement”. I didn’t say “breaking”, I said “unfaithfulness”. You are also showing that your previous statement “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.” is a lie. If it has no importance to you, you wouldn’t keep nitpicking it.
That just shows how little you understand this issue. What, exactly, is the mathematical problem with Randi’s combining the results?
