The comparison to 9/11 conspiracy theorists is a tad inflammatory I think - I deal with those folks regularly on the Internet and they all seem to be half-insane. They’re making positive claims for which there is no credible evidence, and in spite of the tremendous amount of credible evidence to the contrary.
I guess the problem you see with the Randi challenge, which would apply whether we’re talking about the old challenge or the new one, is that he sets it up in a way that it cannot be won. But what I and others here have posted, is that it’s set up in a way that it can be won if someone genuinely had this ability. If it cannot be won, that just means that the applicants can’t do what they agreed they would be able to do. Randi has commented many times that the typical dowsers who apply genuinely believe they have these skills, so your statement that it’s set up to only catch frauds is not right.
If someone has the ability to find gold in a California creek bed, then he has to figure out some way that he can show this ability conclusively, without Randi or others having to travel to California. If you want his money, it’s up to you to inconvenience yourself to show him. Randi assumed that the ability to find gold would allow him to find it in Florida as well, and this dowser agreed.
Which gets to the new challenge - I would suppose that Randi would be more flexible and would travel to California or wherever to test Sylvia Browne. Not that it would ever get to that point.
I believe that in order to make the challenge legitimate, it would require a commitee or panel of respected, credentialed, impartial, Scientists numbering ten (Five Physical or “Traditional” Scientists of various disciplines and five Parapsychologists or Paranormal Researchers) to agree upon a testing procedure or experimental basis for each case and a declaration of baseline for Million Dollar Proof. Then the testing should be carried out in a fully equipped laboratory or under controlled conditions in the field with proper equipment. Randi should only act as an observer and consultant and the Comittee should be chosen by an impartial entity or arbitrator, definitely not by Randi.
I believe the biggest problem of the change to the Challlenge is the academic endorsement requirement. No academic in their right mind is going to risk signing off on anybody, even if they saw the applicant fly upside down and through hoops in their own laboratory. Because, let’s face it, JREF isn’t about truth, or impartiality, or even skepticism, it is a very transparently disguised defamation league. Randi would not only trash and slander the failed applicant per his inexorably one sided, inconclusive, test design but go on to trash, slander, and question the Academic’s reputation all within the same breath.
Leave the commentary regarding your personal impressions of James Randi out of this thread. A simple “I don’t trust him” is fine. Beyond that, it really is irrelevant to the point that Princhester wished to discuss and will always bring on a hijack.
I disagree. In private conversations with Randi about a proposed test design, he has made it plain that such expensive and elaborate equipment is rarely necessary, and a simple, well-designed test with proper controls is all that is needed. Remember, his specialty is not X-Ray Chromatograpy or Underwater Nuclear Rocket Science, but the Science of How People are Fooled. And such knowledge is all too rare in the scientific community, which is why “scientists” are often fooled by charlatans.
Randi doesn’t have to be an expert in a particular scientific discipline; there are experts in any field he needs available and to whom he turns for advice. His role is to avoid the fraud, whether intentional or accidental.
If you examine the tests that he has done in detail, I believe you will find that an elaborate procedure is often reduced to extremely simple terms and the results can be tallied by anyone with a clipboard. If the question is “In each of 10 trials, was there any water in the jar that the dowser said there was (yes/no)?”, it doesn’t take much training to tally the results and get a definitive and unabiguous answer.
If Randi had been around when Blondlot’s claim for N-Rays was made, it’s likely that those false claims would have been exposed quickly, and it was only when a Randi-like person (Robert Wood) visited the lab and surreptitiously removed a critical component that the delusion was revealed. So simple to a magician, so unnatural to some scientists, especially if the fraud is intentional.
I feel just the opposite. If an academic sees something like that, wouldn’t he want to be on the front lines of discovery? Isn’t he likely to call in his collegues and say, “Goldarnit, Joe, will you looky here? What do you think of this?” That’s not to say he wouldn’t investigate further, and if he does, and finds the phenomena valid or not, part of Randi’s work is done already. Spread the responsibility, I say.
[QUOTE=devilsknew]
I believe the biggest problem of the change to the Challlenge is the academic endorsement requirement. No academic in their right mind is going to risk signing off on anybody, even if they saw the the applicant fly upside down and through hoops in their own laboratory. Because, let’s face it, JREF isn’t about truth, or impartiality, or even skepticism, it is a very transparently disguised defamation league. Randi would not only trash and slander the failed applicant per his inexorably one sided, inconclusive, test design but go on to trash, slander, and question the Academic’s reputation all within the same breath.
Oyeah, I kow exactly what your academic community is all about. Misquotes and manipulation.
Look, the idea of bias has very little merit, and never has had much merit. BOTH parties must agree upon the testing methodolgy. It isn’t something that skeptics design just to trip up the claimants: it’s done so that the exact claim being made can be isolated from all possible fakery to everyone’s agreement.
Yes, Randi’s side can well be biased, but that’s irrelevant. They are one side of an adversarial process that creates a challenge to EVERYONE’S satisfaction. The biased side does NOT judge whether the claimant passed the test. The criteria for meeting the test are made very simple and clear beforehand and they are either met or they aren’t. That’s the whole point of creating such a clear and isolated test.
Actually, you appear to have demonstrated his point about your misunderstanding.
The point is that the scientific and academic communities would no more pay heed to any slurs from Randi* (who is an outsider to both), than they would to any other outsider who tramped across their turf. Nothing Randi could say, do, publish, or televise regarding a demonstration of laboratory self-flight, teleportation, or speaking with the dead would have the slightest effect on the community who read about such an event in one of their own journals.
Misunderstanding Colibri’s point as an excuse to repeat your comments about why you claim to hate Randi do not make your point, it demonstrates his.
Granting only for the sake of discussion that Randi would actually attempt to slur someone–a point we will not further discuss.
Any academic who was able to objectively and rigorously demonstrate the existence of paranormal abilities would be in line for the Nobel Prize. If you think differently, you just don’t know how science works.
I mean, nothing could be stranger than relativity or quantum mechanics, and scientists won Nobel Prizes in those fields for ideas the average person would think were pure insanity. Paranormal ability is nothing compared to these in terms of sheer unbelieveability. The difference is that quantum theory and relativity can objectively and repeatedly be demonstrated, and paranormal abilities cannot.
You made a claim that academics would be afraid of “signing off” on various challenges for fear of “being trashed” by Randi and JREF.
Colibri pointed out that your claim demonstrated that you really did not know how the academic community operates.
You accused Colibri of dishonesty for omitting your rant against the basic integrity of Randi and JREF (presumably because you felt that it was their lack of integrity that the academics needed to fear).
I pointed out that you missed his point: He was not claiming that the academics had nothing to fear because JREF demonstrated integrity. He was pointing out that the academic community had nothing to fear because they don’t know or care about JREF. He did not gut your point by leaving off your condemnation of JREF because that issue was irrelevant. Regardless whether Randi is wholly corrupt or blamelessly pristine, he is outside the academic community and any “trashing” JREF attempted of an academic who signed a statement would be ignored by that community.
By attacking Colibri for not quoting you in full, you demonstrated his point: that you really do not understand the complete irrelevance that JREF has inside the academic community.
Thanks for clarifying, Tom. I overlooked what devilsknew was objecting to in my post, partly because what he was saying is so bizarre based on my own experience in the academic community.
Your point is correct; anything Randi, or for that matter the popular press, had to say about an academic would be irrelevant within the academic community. The only thing that matters there, really, is what gets published in peer-reviewed journals. That’s where reputations are made or broken. Anything else is just background noise.
You’re right, I don’t know a whole lot about the ins and outs of the academic process other than the very basics that I picked up in my time in college, read about, or my experiences with academics and what they have related. But I do know that every academic works very hard to make a name for himself or get funding in the very competitive world of academia. They also try very hard to protect their reputation, and that’s why I can’t see them risking the controversy in Randi’s venue.
True, it could make them. But more likely, the spin could break them.
You previously proposed, yourself, that five respected, credentialed, impartial, Parapsychologists or Paranormal Researchers be included in a test panel. I assume that “credentialed” means that they have some kind of academic agree in some scientific field, and your reference to them as “Scientists” means that they rigorously apply standard scientific methodology and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Presumably a professional Parapsychologist or Paranormal Researcher would not suffer any loss of professional reputation by, you know, being involved in a demonstration that the phenomenon they are supposedly investigating actually exists.
Randi’s requirement for some kind of academic endorsement is quite vague, but it appears to me that it might include an endorsement by the kind of scientist you yourself suggest be included in the evaluation. It does not appear to require that an actual peer-reviewed article about the claimant have been published. Surely if someone actually were able to demonstrate paranormal abilities they would be able to find a “credentialed Parapsychologists or Paranormal Researcher” to provide an endorsement?
Of course, one problem is that many people who bill themselves as Parapsychologists or Paranormal Researchers do not employ rigorous scientific methodology, and so are not actually scientists. Another is that, of those that do, few if any have found any evidence of paranormal abilities.
You have proposed that at least five “respected, credentialed, impartial, Parapsychologists or Paranormal Researchers” exist. Could you provide a few examples of individuals that fit that profile?
If scientists truly thought that there was anything to this paranormal stuff, then those scientists would be all over it. The person who characterized a whole new field of study would be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize, and would be remembered fondly forever (think Darwin). Scientists all the time delve into areas of study that might not pan out. Most don’t worry too much about the effect on their reputation, because they know of the reward if they can prove themselves right.
That’s how science works. And there are people who are looking into the paranormal areas from a scientific standpoint. Why haven’t you heard of them? Because after all that work, they haven’t found anything yet. I don’t think they ever will.
One may also compare the history of research in cold fusion. Two researchers published a peer-reviewed article claiming that they had produced atomic fusion at temperatures far higher than it was supposedly possible.
Did scientists dismiss this out of hand as ridiculous, because it went against accepted doctrine? Not at all. There were feverish attempts to duplicate the research in many other laboratories worldwide. It was only after no one else was able to replicate the original findings that the conclusion was reached that the first researchers had made some kind of error.