# Changes to Randi's Challenge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2007, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695 "2007-01-12T13:56:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/261 "2007-01-19T17:43:13Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I assume you refer to your post #32 and the testing of “Mike G.” If this is the same Mike G. from the link in Czarcasm’s post #248, the reasoning behind the “open test” procedure is stated quite clearly; to let the claimant detect any possible interference from other objects in the area and also to establish that his claimed abilities are working that day in that place. [/quote] The purpose of the open test is to give Randi an excuse to use whenever someone complains about mistreatment. **Mike** : “But that wasn’t the way I usually dowse, it’s not a fair representation of my abilities.” \*\*Randi \*\*: “You got 100% on the open test, and that means that you thought it was fair.” And thus any complaint is dismissed. > [@](#): > > Do you have statement of Mike G. himself claiming the open test procedure was flawed? According to Randi, he claimed after the closed testing that there was another source of interference, which he ignored during the open testing. I don’t get the slightest impression from Randi’s account that any shenanigans or rudeness or pressure was used against Mike G. What do you expect a peer review to uncover? Yeah, go to Randi’s forum, search for mikes posts under the name “Edge” Several long threads discussing his first test, and his hopes for a future one. The gist is that Mike says he COULDN’T dowse during the open test. He told Randi DURING the open test that he was having trouble. He suggested several things as the source of interference, including the gold lettering on a book spine, and the office photocopier and this BEFORE the closed test. According to Mike, Randi took a threatening tone, and told Mike that he must succeed RIGHT NOW OR BE DISQUALIFIED. And under that threat, Mike went through the motions, saying he was dowsing in the open test, not actually believing it. But then, having bullied Mike into showing a 100% success in the open test, Randi now has a catch-all excuse for all of his misdeeds. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/262 "2007-01-19T17:57:23Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] The purpose of the open test is to give Randi an excuse to use whenever someone complains about mistreatment. **Mike** : “But that wasn’t the way I usually dowse, it’s not a fair representation of my abilities.” \*\*Randi \*\*: “You got 100% on the open test, and that means that you thought it was fair.” And thus any complaint is dismissed. Yeah, go to Randi’s forum, search for mikes posts under the name “Edge” Several long threads discussing his first test, and his hopes for a future one. The gist is that Mike says he COULDN’T dowse during the open test. He told Randi DURING the open test that he was having trouble. He suggested several things as the source of interference, including the gold lettering on a book spine, and the office photocopier and this BEFORE the closed test. According to Mike, Randi took a threatening tone, and told Mike that he must succeed RIGHT NOW OR BE DISQUALIFIED. And under that threat, Mike went through the motions, saying he was dowsing in the open test, not actually believing it. But then, having bullied Mike into showing a 100% success in the open test, Randi now has a catch-all excuse for all of his misdeeds. [/QUOTE] At what point will you finally admit that you believe in dowsing, Peter? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/263 "2007-01-19T17:57:57Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Well, that’s a _claim_, but who wrote it? (the article is annoyingly omissive; Randi wasn’t exactly striving for clarity, it seems) The writer said he’s seen the footage. Can _we_ see the footage or read a transcript or at least get a summary of what happened? [/quote] I’m pretty sure he means this test : [http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm) The water divining test had the following results: 50 trials. 1 in 10 chance at each trial. 11 hits. That is a 22% hit rate, when you would expect 10%. I asked some mathematicians to look at these figures. I’ve been told that the results favourable the dowsers, and are significant at 99% confidence level. > [@](#): > > The writer says he looked at the footage “critically” but then uses vague words like “muddled” and “flannel” without giving specifics. The issue is that Randi didn’t get the result he wanted, so he mangled the figures. In effect, he changed the method of counting. He had run two other tests. They were totally separate tests. It was a different group of people, making a different claim, tested under a different protocol. The only connection to the water divining test was that it happened to be done on the same day. Randi added the scores from the other two tests to the water diviners score. This is NOT what they agreed to in advance. The agreement signed by the water diviners makes no mention of any other test. So, adding other people’s scores to the water diviners’ changes the result. With the revised method of counting, the score becomes 15 hits in 111 trials, or 13% > [@](#): > > It is natural to expect that given enough tests of enough people, some will score high by random chance alone. Repeated tests of the same people will demonstrate if the result was chance or actual dowsing ability (or, we must admit, subtle cheating the testers keep missing, showing the need for careful vigilance). Perfectly true - and that is what Randi SHOULD have said. He OUGHT to have said something like "This result is abnormally high, but is the sort of statistical anomaly that comes up about once in a hundred tests. Most likely this result is due to fluke. If the test were to be replicated with similar results then it would be significant evidence of dowsing ability, but just one occasion of this happening is not proof of paranormal ability " If he had said that, I’d been in full agreement. But he didn’t. He twisted the figures and made it look like the dowsers only got “a figure well within expectation.” > [@](#): > > Heck, I took statistics in university. _I’ll_ review the results, as soon as someone gives me any. I’m prepared to assume that Randi is framing the exchange of letters to his advantage. How this supports the idea that he cheats on dowsing tests is unclear. Well, use your own skills to review. Let me know what you think. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/264 "2007-01-19T20:55:16Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] So what are you even doing in this debate? You’ve admitted you don’t know much about academics, and you evidently don’t know much about research in the paranormal either. Your opinions seem to be highly uninformed. [/QUOTE] Well, I’m a magician, a _real_ sceptic, and I spent some time in college (Which is more than Randi can say- What University did Randi attend, again?). Do I qualify to be in this debate? Or maybe the better question is, what is Randi even doing in this debate? You seem to be a supporter and true believer in Randi. So, tell me, why do you believe he is qualified to design and administer “scientific” tests for claims of the paranormal? Also, Randi evidently doesn’t seem to know much about research in the paranormal, either. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe he believes anything paranormal exists and is invariably dimissive of its findings. I would even go so far as to say if he did see something paranormal his bias would preclude him from admitting it. His opinions seem to be highly uninformed. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/265 "2007-01-19T21:19:41Z")
[QUOTE=devilsknew] Do I qualify to be in this debate? Or maybe the better question is, what is Randi even doing in this debate? [/QUOTE] The OP put him there. > [@](#): > > Also, Randi evidently doesn’t seem to know much about research in the paranormal, either. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe he believes anything paranormal exists and is invariably dimissive of its findings. Assuming that to be true, it should have no effect on the testing procedures. Randi is not the sole arbiter. > [@](#): > > I would even go so far as to say if he did see something paranormal his bias would preclude him from admitting it. His opinions seem to be highly uninformed. You have been asked to provide some informed opinions concerning paranormal research. Here is another opportunity. And from before – What is Randi’s hitlist? Who is or has been on Randi’s hitlist? What are the consequences of being on Randi’s hitlist? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/266 "2007-01-19T21:21:29Z")
[QUOTE=devilsknew] As a matter of fact, I don’t believe [Randi] believes anything paranormal exists [/QUOTE] He doesn’t, and he doesn’t claim to, and you demonstrate your fundamental lack of understanding of his challenge by making this statement. Do you believe anything paranormal exists? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/267 "2007-01-19T21:47:44Z")
[QUOTE=devilsknew] Well, I’m a magician, a _real_ sceptic, and I spent some time in college (Which is more than Randi can say- What University did Randi attend, again?). [/quote] A “real” sceptic? What makes you a “real” sceptic and someone else (Randi, I assume) a “fake” sceptic? Also, how much college do you have? “Some” implies you didn’t finish your degree. Is that correct? Because if it is, and if you want to argue that your “some college” makes you more qualified to be in this debate than James Randi, then my BA in English lit from a State college makes _me_ more qualified to be in this debate than _you_. So what are _you_ doing in this debate? Or, we could always dispense with academic snobbery and address arguments on their own merits. You’ve argued that “academics” won’t be supportive of theories advancing the existence of paranormal or psychic abilities because they are afraid of being on Randi’s “hitlist.” What exactly is this hitlist, and what are the ramifications of being on it? Like much of what you have posted in this thread, you seem unwilling or unable to substantiate this claim. > [@](#): > > Do I qualify to be in this debate? Or maybe the better question is, what is Randi even doing in this debate? You seem to be a supporter and true believer in Randi. So, tell me, why do you believe he is qualified to design and administer “scientific” tests for claims of the paranormal? Well, he’s willing to design and administer them, and has the manpower and the resources to do so. As far as I know, those are the only qualifications necessary. Did you have additional qualifications in mind? Oh, wait, it seems that you do: > [@](#): > > Also, Randi evidently doesn’t seem to know much about research in the paranormal, either. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe he believes anything paranormal exists and is invariably dimissive of its findings. I would even go so far as to say if he did see something paranormal his bias would preclude him from admitting it. His opinions seem to be highly uninformed. So, in order for someone to be “qualified” to do paranormal research, they have to accept before hand that the paranormal exists? Yeah, that’s a good way to eliminate bias. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/268 "2007-01-19T21:48:36Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > For example, most of Randi’s tests are done in a few minutes, not hours. They usually consist of just 5 or 10 trials. One mistake, or one lucky guess will cause a 20% swing in the results. A 0.000001% result cannot show up in Randi’s test. Well, if the _applicant claimed that they could get it right every time_, then 7 trials is all they should need to achieve a 0.000001% (10[sup]-7[/sup]) result. If the applicant claimed they could get it right half the time in a 10 trial test, the same result will need … errm, shit, can’t do binomial distributions in my head … what, 30 or so tests? If the applicant is a bit cagey and merely says he can achieve results _of the requires significance_, then a reasonable time limit must be placed on how long the test runs for since, like a broke gambler who just can’t quit the table, his lucky streak might start _any second now!_ If Randi insisted on 10/10 correct answers in a 10 option test for _everyone, no matter what their claims_, you would have a justifiable complaint, but this is simply not the case to my knowledge. > [@Peter](#): > > 50 trials. > 1 in 10 chance at each trial. > 11 hits. > > That is a 22% hit rate, when you would expect 10%. > > I asked some mathematicians to look at these figures. I’ve been told that the results favourable the dowsers, and are significant at 99% confidence level. In a [binomial distribution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution) with n=50, p=0.1 and k=11, I do indeed make that exp(-4.68) = 0.01, or 1%. (Someone tell me I haven’t screwed that up royally – it’s been a while!) But the problem is, if one of these _other_ groups that day had achieved 1% significance (at whatever it was they were doing), would you not be focussing the discussion on _them_? Or, if a particularly lucky _individual_ attained a fantastic score, might we not be talking about good old Bob, the guy who showed Randi what a pompous blowhard he is? This is why Randi might have added the results together – to avoid accusations of [publication bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias). In any case, I’m not sure why _groups_ were specified anyway: surely testing paranormal ability should proceed purely on the basis of _individuals_? If one individual can consistely buck the odds, _they’re_ the ones who should be properly investigated. Groups just muddy the issue, do they not? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/269 "2007-01-19T21:50:51Z")
_Erratum_: If the applicant claimed they could get it right half the time in a 10- **option** test … ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/270 "2007-01-19T22:24:46Z")
[QUOTE=devilsknew] Well, I’m a magician, a _real_ sceptic, and I spent some time in college (Which is more than Randi can say- What University did Randi attend, again?). Do I qualify to be in this debate? Or maybe the better question is, what is Randi even doing in this debate? You seem to be a supporter and true believer in Randi. So, tell me, why do you believe he is qualified to design and administer “scientific” tests for claims of the paranormal? [/quote] Randi is not _participating_ in this debate, or in this thread. (Apparently, however, you think he is reading it in order to find out your personal opinion of paranormal researchers so he can put them on his “hitlist.”) Randi is the subject of this thread - that’s why he is under discussion. And the tests are not _designed_ by Randi alone, but designed in conjunction with the people he is testing. Should these people have a say in the design of the tests? You are participating in this thread, but not actually participating in the debate. All you are doing is spouting ill-informed, ignorant, and obviously biased opinions. > [@](#): > > Also, Randi evidently doesn’t seem to know much about research in the paranormal, either. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe he believes anything paranormal exists and is invariably dimissive of its findings. Why is it necessary to believe the paranormal exists in order to test claims that people have paranormal abilities? This is such an absurd non sequitur that it is difficult to take seriously anything you say. > [@](#): > > I would even go so far as to say if he did see something paranormal his bias would preclude him from admitting it. His opinions seem to be highly uninformed. More pointless blather. How about giving us the names of two researchers in the paranormal that you consider to be serious, respectable scientists that I asked you for earlier? Once again, I’m asking you to put up or shut up. I doubt you will do either. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/271 "2007-01-19T23:13:04Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] I’m pretty sure he means this test : [http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm) The water divining test had the following results: 50 trials. 1 in 10 chance at each trial. 11 hits. That is a 22% hit rate, when you would expect 10%. I asked some mathematicians to look at these figures. I’ve been told that the results favourable the dowsers, and are significant at 99% confidence level. … Well, use your own skills to review. Let me know what you think. [/QUOTE] Based on this article, I’d conclude that Randi isn’t a statistician (or at least he doesn’t write like one, because he’s omitting the raw data and combining things that shouldn’t be combined). The 22% result of the water dowsing is interesting, I’ll admit, though still well below what the dowsers themselves claimed they could do. My opinion is that Randi should have attached more detailed results and had someone acquainted with formal statistics do the math summary. Only on this point do I see a problem with Randi’s personal “limits”. I still don’t get the impression of cheating or lying or _any_ malicious activity on Randi’s part. Had I been on hand (and at my current age and educational level, as opposed to just being 11 in 1980), I would cheerfully have volunteered to do the statistical summary, complete with confidence intervals and Poisson distributions and whatnot. Of course, this test was 27 years ago. I hope Randi has gotten a bit better about reporting detailed results since, though I don’t know how many opportunities he’s had to test under such conditions. Underwater pipes are expensive, after all. As an incidental, I thought the logo of the koala peering through a magnifying glass was amusing. > [@](#): > > Yeah, go to Randi’s forum, search for mikes posts under the name “Edge” Several long threads discussing his first test, and his hopes for a future one. Well, I had to register to search (I put you down as my referral; I hope you don’t mind) and am now waiting activation. Meantime, if you’d be so kind as to supply a link to one of Mike/Edge’s complaints, it might speed things along. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/272 "2007-01-19T23:40:19Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] In a [binomial distribution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution) with n=50, p=0.1 and k=11, I do indeed make that exp(-4.68) = 0.01, or 1%. (Someone tell me I haven’t screwed that up royally – it’s been a while!) [/quote] Thank you. > [@](#): > > But the problem is, if one of these _other_ groups that day had achieved 1% significance (at whatever it was they were doing), would you not be focussing the discussion on _them_? Uh, no. The point is NOT that someone occasionally gets an abnormally high result. I’ve already addressed that point, and I say it would happen about 1 time in 100 by fluke. Merely the fact that this happens sometimes is not in itself remarkable. The point is that Randi fudged the figures to get the result he was expecting. That’s the unforgivable thing. > [@](#): > > In any case, I’m not sure why _groups_ were specified anyway: surely testing paranormal ability should proceed purely on the basis of _individuals_? I agree. See, that’s why I want his tests to be peer reviewed. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/273 "2007-01-20T00:10:37Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Based on this article, I’d conclude that Randi isn’t a statistician … [/quote] > [@](#): > > My opinion is that Randi should have attached more detailed results and had someone acquainted with formal statistics do the math summary. peer review? > [@](#): > > Only on this point do I see a problem with Randi’s personal “limits”. I still don’t get the impression of cheating or lying or _any_ malicious activity on Randi’s part. But you agree that his analysis is flawed? Through mistake? > [@](#): > > I hope Randi has gotten a bit better about reporting detailed results since, though I don’t know how many opportunities he’s had to test under such conditions. Underwater pipes are expensive, after all. If anything, he’s got worse. He claims to have done many tests since then, but few have been actually described. The few descriptions that have been given have been… brief. > [@](#): > > Well, I had to register to search (I put you down as my referral; I hope you don’t mind) and am now waiting activation. Meantime, if you’d be so kind as to supply a link to one of Mike/Edge’s complaints, it might speed things along. An old one, talking about his failure in the first test : [http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=40&highlight="edge+dowsing"](http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=40&highlight=%22edge+dowsing%22) A more recent one, talking about his proposal for a future test [http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=57364&highlight="edge+dowsing"](http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=57364&highlight=%22edge+dowsing%22) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/274 "2007-01-20T01:04:31Z")
I can’t see anything in the current discussion that warrants any particular changes to the challenge. No one has given an example of an instance of a challenge where the claimant did what they said they could do but failed to be awarded the prize. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/275 "2007-01-20T01:08:19Z")
Other than me, you mean? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/276 "2007-01-20T01:09:34Z")
No. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/277 "2007-01-20T01:48:30Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] Other than me, you mean? [/QUOTE] Obviously not, unless _you_ actually filled out an application, _your_ application was accepted, _you_ were tested, _you_ failed the test, and then _you_ challenged the results. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/278 "2007-01-20T02:22:18Z")
[www.proverandiwrong.net](http://www.proverandiwrong.net) 1. Challenge issued by Randi 2. Formal application sent to Randi, accepting the challenge he specified. 3. Randi currently refusing to discuss honouring the challenge he set. No willingness to actually test the challenge that he made. That is what Princhester asked for: “an instance of a challenge where the claimant did what they said they could do but failed to be awarded the prize” to the letter. BTW, you asked me a question in post #246, to which I replied in post #250. What is your response to that then? Can you tell me whether on the occasion I listed, Randi was telling the truth or lying? Enquiring minds want to know. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/279 "2007-01-20T02:37:43Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] peer review? [/quote] Actually, no. That would be a waste of time. He should just have someone acquainted with statistics on hand during the tests to record all the results and analyze them and attach this analysis (or a link to it) as an appendix to his articles. What’s a peer review going to do; dock him five points for not showing his work? Besides, who do you suggest be on the review board? Scientists? Magicians? Parapsychologists? Professional dowsers? > [@](#): > > But you agree that his analysis is flawed? Through mistake? His _reporting_ is flawed and wouldn’t pass muster in a serious scientific journal because of lack of access to the raw data, if nothing else. How that makes him a liar or a cheat any number of accusations you’ve thrown his way remains unclear to me. > [@](#): > > If anything, he’s got worse. He claims to have done many tests since then, but few have been actually described. The few descriptions that have been given have been… brief. Do you think he would actively conceal a result if someone scored 90% or better? Just curious. > [@](#): > > An old one, talking about his failure in the first test : [http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=40&highlight="edge+dowsing"](http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=40&highlight=%22edge+dowsing%22) > A more recent one, talking about his proposal for a future test > [http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=57364&highlight="edge+dowsing"](http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=57364&highlight=%22edge+dowsing%22) Are you sure you want to hitch your wagon to this guy? Randi, as I’ve noted, isn’t a perfect writer - there are omissions and flaws in his articles - but Mike/Edge is far less articulate and coherent. His suggested alternate testing procedure is rather badly explained and unless it _is_ explained, it can’t be shown that it would be a “fairer” test than his first encounter with the JREF. One nice benefit of your second link, though, is that it contains links to the original Australian dowsing video, which I’ve watched in its entirety. The muddled statistics you accuse Randi of using are in fact _not_ used by him but by the judges, as read starting at 33:15 (in the version of the video I saw [here](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034)) and later repeated at 37:05 in a telephone interview by one of the other $10,000 skeptics (the gentleman with the black glasses whose name I didn’t catch) with a reporter from the _Telegraph_. In any event, Randi is but one of four skeptics throwing in his money, and there were judges and reporters and whatnot present. If the test procedure was unfair, are they all conspiring to conceal it? Your argument seems to be only that Randi didn’t report the results properly and this proves your claim of all variety of negative things about Randi personally. Your conclusion is unclear to me. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/280 "2007-01-20T02:37:53Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] [www.proverandiwrong.net](http://www.proverandiwrong.net) 1. Challenge issued by Randi 2. Formal application sent to Randi, accepting the challenge he specified. 3. Randi currently refusing to discuss honouring the challenge he set. No willingness to actually test the challenge that he made. That is what Princhester asked for: “an instance of a challenge where the claimant did what they said they could do but failed to be awarded the prize” to the letter. [/QUOTE] Peter, I think I counted 15 times that I asked you this question in one thread alone and you didn’t answer me then, so I don’t expect you’ll answer me now, but I’ll ask again just for posterity: When and where did Randi state that anyone who could find flowing water underground would win his million dollars? When did Randi specifically state that anyone who could find a “dry spot” was eligible for his million dollars? When were these officially and specifically put forth as challenges, awaiting an anwswer, and not as anecdotal remarks as part of a speech unrelated to the JREF million dollar challenge? Please provide cites to back up your claims. > [@Peter Morris](#): > > BTW, you asked me a question in post #246, to which I replied in post #250. > What is your response to that then? Can you tell me whether on the occasion I listed, Randi was telling the truth or lying? Enquiring minds want to know. You answer people’s questions with about the same frequency as a dowser finds what he or she is looking for under controlled circumstances; why are you so insistent that people answer yours? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695.md?page=15)