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.
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 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%
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.”
Well, use your own skills to review. Let me know what you think.
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.
Assuming that to be true, it should have no effect on the testing procedures. Randi is not the sole arbiter.
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?
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.
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:
So, in order for someone to be “qualified” to do paranormal research, they have to accept before hand that the paranormal exists?
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.
In a 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree.
See, that’s why I want his tests to be peer reviewed.
But you agree that his analysis is flawed? Through mistake?
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.
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.
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?
Formal application sent to Randi, accepting the challenge he specified.
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.
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?
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.
Do you think he would actively conceal a result if someone scored 90% or better? Just curious.
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) 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.
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.
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?