Every time I attempt to have a discussion with you, I have the distinct feeling that you aren’t understanding anything you are talking about, or are just completely missing what the subject of discussion is.
We’re not talking about a free ranging inquiry into whether X exists. We’re talking about a DIRECT test of a persons CLAIM about their ability to do something paranormal. Either they can prove the specific claim or they can’t. It doesn’t get a lot simpler. If a person claims they can influence coin tosses with their mind to make them always land heads, then they can either do it or they can’t. There’s nothing to “miss.” And if the applicant “misses” some aspect of their purported power, then that’s their loss: they agreed to the test, insisted that it would work, and then it didn’t work. Whose fault is that?
If they say they can do X, then the test is whether or not they can really do X, when controls for things like fraud or other known natural effects are implemented to the satisfaction of the applicant.
I don’t even understand how “peer review” is relevant to that process. What does that have to do with anything?
Speaking of bias, it’s interesting that you seem to be concerned about mistakes or cheating on Mr. Randi’s part, when it seems more likely that any mistakes or cheating would come from the applicants.
How would Randi cheat, anyway? Have a dowsing applicant find the hidden cup of gold or water and then have a confederate remove it on the sly? I guess if anyone could do such, it’d be a professional magician like Randi, but I’d like to know what kind of cheating you have in mind and how peer review (however you define it) would act as remedy.
Sure, some claimants try to cheat. I’ve never said otherwise.
But Randi sometimes lies as well. His conduct of a test must be carefully reviewed. Just because Randi says he tested someone doesn’t mean it actually happened.
Aren’t many or most of these tests (at the preliminary level, which no-one has apparently gotten past) monitored by people other than Randi personally? It looked to me like in some cases, the JREF were willing to have the test run by some branch local or nearly local to the applicant. I don’t recall a requirement that the applicant go to where Randi was, or where the JREF headquarters are, wherever that is.
Peer review of the test methodology would seem a cure for a non-existent disease.
Obviously, the tests have never allowed someone to win who shouldn’t have since the prize has never been claimed.
I have never seen a test conducted where there was any subsequent attack on the methodology that appeared to have any merit. Where there have been complaints about the methodology of conducted tests, the complaints are kicked around at length. I’ve never seen anyone with claimed academic credentials criticise the methodology of any of Randi’s tests.
The cheating consists of deliberately misrepresenting what an applicant says.
Briefly, it goes like this:
a bunch of people say - I can do XXX
Randi offers to test their ability to do YYY instead.
about 99% of them say “that is not what I’m claiming” and reject his offer.
On rare occasions, someone agrees to the test as set by Randi.
Now, the person has agreed to a badly designed test. The test being given is different from his actual claim.
The cheating comes when Randi pulls a lot of nasty tricks, to give the illusion that guy is being tested on his own claim. Randi makes it seem as if YYY was his claim all along.
Righto, Mister Moderator, I can do that. Since you asked me for the information, I can give it
An amusing little anecdote told by Randi on numerous occasions. He keeps on coming out with the same thing over and over again. It’s a central theme of his lectures and articles on dowsing.
<< I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth’s surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don’t want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. >>
A boastful account of how he beat some dowsers. Two parts to his claim
He often dares dowsers to “find a dry spot”
Dowsers always refuse the dare.
Now, Mister moderator, what do you think of Randi’s tale? Do you think he’s telling the truth? Is the tale he told an accurate one?
Do you think he has, on one or more occasion issued that particular dare to a dowser?
Or, do you think that he never did any such thing.
Well, what if XXX is vague, or offers so many possibilities for cheating or mistaken results? A claimant that said he could dowse for gold in a particular stream was discussed earlier. Conducting such a test carries two major risks:
[ul][li]The applicant planted gold in specific spots the week before the test so he could discover them[/li][li]That particular stream is especially rich with gold, so dowsing anywhere along its length and digging long enough will recover at least some gold specks[/ul][/li]
The alternate YYY is an attempt to eliminate these, by picking a venue the applicant can’t “load” as well as making results far less ambiguous.
Well, you’ve made a claim earlier and now spelled out a hypothetical, and your point 4 refers to “rare occasions” which I take to mean at least several occasions, so I’m sure you can give specifics, including an example of a “badly designed” test and a “nasty trick” how peer review would eliminate such.
<<I do know about Randi’s cheque, and I have also looked critically at the footage of a massive dowsing test he carried out in Australia. In that test he bamboozled the contestants with muddled statistics. They did indeed show a significant effect, but he managed to flannel his way out of it. >>
In the test referred to, the dowsers scored somewhat higher than expected by chance. Randi changed the method of counting to get the result he wanted.
A peer review would decide if Randi was muddling the statistics or not.
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? The writer says he looked at the footage “critically” but then uses vague words like “muddled” and “flannel” without giving specifics.
There no indication the method was changed - only that it was “re-tried in Perth, Australia, a few weeks later” after Randi left the country. 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).
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.
Granted, looking at the numbers would be good. Are they available anywhere?
But you will also notice that
and
So, there was a test. Two people did a little better than chance but worse than they themselves predicted. They were retested and did significantly worse than chance on the second test.
The person making the claim that Randi fudged the numbers has the burden of proof. He needs to provide the numbers and explain what Randi did wrong. If he cannot do that, the claim his worthless. It’s a test. There are rules. If Randi violated the rules, it should be easy to point out what he did incorrectly. Someone claiming that Randi cheated is not proof the Randi cheated.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, what if XXX is vague, or offers so many possibilities for cheating or mistaken results? A claimant that said he could dowse for gold in a particular stream was discussed earlier. Conducting such a test carries two major risks:
[ul][li]The applicant planted gold in specific spots the week before the test so he could discover them[/li][li]That particular stream is especially rich with gold, so dowsing anywhere along its length and digging long enough will recover at least some gold specks[/ul] [/li][/quote]
Well, yes. that’s true. Talk about stating the obvious.
The test needs someone very clever to overcome those problems.
In other words, Randi doesn’t have the brains to test the actual claim properly, so he changes it to something much easier that he can do. All contestants are required to fall within Randi’s limited abilities.
given at length earlier in the thread. See my points about the “open test”
Well, when I’m presented with something confusing, I try to start with the obvious and progress from there to uncover the sticking point.
Is it even possible to overcome those problems? Planted gold could have been put there weeks or even months earlier, and if the stream is rich with gold flakes, then dowsing it is meaningless. Could these problems be overcome if, as a suggestion, the testers buried chunks of gold along the stream’s length while the dowser waited nearby in a van with the windows blocked?
Well, there is the whole concept of “controlled testing”. Would any effort to evaluate a claim in a reasonably unambiguous way be “limited”? What claims are suffering under Randi’s limited abilities?
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. 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?
Indeed. Which is why Peter Morris’ claims and complaints seem so baseless. Ever time he raises an example, going over the claimed “flaw” ends up looking even more foolish and bad for the claimants in the end. All we are left with is someone’s opinion of Randi as a person, which is irrelevant to whether the claimants could demonstrate their ability or not.
The noisy astrologer I mentioned earlier fits your example here. He claimed:
Claim (XXX) = “I can prepare horoscopes for several men, and if you show those horoscopes to their wives, at least 60% will agree that the horoscope is accurate.”
Randi’s offer to test (YYY) = “Prepare five horoscopes for five unknown men of similar age, let their wives then choose which of those five was for her husband. You would need to get all five correct to win.”
I think this example shows why there is often an XXX vs. YYY with the challenge. The people who think they have paranormal ability, often think this precisely because they don’t have very good critical thinking skills. They think that doing XXX would be good evidence of their ability, but they don’t understand the pitfalls of how you can fool yourself. And in this case, the man who claimed XXX is incensed that Randi is not agreeing to test him fairly.