A peer review will do what peer reviews always do. Review the article prior to publication, spot mistakes, recommend rewrites.
Yes. Scientists. Who else?
It’s just one example. I’ve got plenty of others.
He’d say that it isn’t paranormal, and doesn’t deserve the prize.
I’m not supporting him. I’m just presenting it as evidence of Randi’s misbehaviour.
Note, however, that he is not a native speaker of English. He spoke two other languages before coming to America.
For all you know he may be a gifted speaker in his mother tongue.
My argument is that Randi doesn’t know how to conduct a test. The fact that he didn’t report the results accurately is just one instance among dozens that lead me to that conclusion. It’s this and a lot of other things. Some of them show ignorance, others show dishonesty. Put all of them together and it is clear to me that Randi is the wrong person to run these tests.
You are a liar. I answered the question over and over. Y
Given repeatedly. You just twist Randi’s words. I’m not going to argue about it yet again. It’s off topic for this thread, and the mods would throw a fit if I went into it in any detail.
Randi has been issuing the challenge for at least 25 years. The amount of money on offer 25 years ago was a lot smaller, but the principle is the same.
You can see some examples of Randi issuing the challenge on my website : http://www.proverandiwrong.net/Randi_sAYS.aspx
But you won’t look at it. You will keep making excuses for him, and pretending that he didn’t say these things.
You and others have been over this ad infinitum et ad nauseam.
You explicitly state in your web page
In contrast, the JREF page to which you link explicitly states
The application form begins with this statement
The first rule of the application includes the express statement
(All bolding mine.)
I am not going to get into one more extended argument with you over your claim that you have met the conditions of Randi’s Challenge.
More to the point, you are not going to clutter up this thread with arguments over whether you have met the conditions of his Challenge. If you have a desperate need to go through that argument for another 12 pages, open up your own thread. If you feel a need to point to previous arguments to support your position, here, simply link to the appropriate discussion or posts in other threads. This thread will not be hijacked over you personal antipathy to Randi, so there will be no more discussion of that issue in this thread. (Feel free to open one more thread on that topic if you feel so compelled, but keep it out of this thread.) Everyone else: take note that you have no reason to query Peter Morris regarding his previous encounters with Randi in the context of discussing the new rules, so if you need to make it an issue, open your own thread.
Just a note, Mr moderator. I was DIRECTLY answering a question put to me by moderator Czarcasm
While I am mindful of your warnings earlier in the thread, a moderator has given me direct permission to talk on this subject by posing a question directly to me.
Other than as a direct response to a moderators questions, I’m discussing the changes to the rules. And my contention at the moment is that any respectable test requires a peer review process.
since I am probably the only board member who has actually formally applied to Randi’s challenge, my own experience provide first hand insight into the challenge.
My own experiences are directly relevent to proper discussion of the rules.
Which could have been answered by a simple link to your web site. When I posted that Everyone was to stay away from further comments on your Challenge, I meant everyone including Mods. Neither you nor Czarcasm are being Warned for having fallen back into that cesspool; you are just being advised that that is not the topic of this thread and you are to stay away from it in this thread.
No, they are not. They are directly relevant to your perception of how you have been treated by Randi and JREF prior to the current change in rules. An assertion that Randi will just ignore anything he does not like has no direct bearing on whether the new rules, as formulated, are legitimate or useful.
Wouldn’t it be better to just ask Randi to supply extra documentation about the exact results of the test? The Australian dowsing mass test was unusual in that ten people collectively ran 111 trials. That the water-dowsers did better than average (while the metal-dowsers did as expected or worse than expected) is interesting if one assumes there might be some important difference that makes water-dowsing feasible and metal-dowsing… not. The dowsers themselves didn’t seem to think there was any difference between the two, and the video contains multiple statements by the dowsers that they thought the water-pipe apparatus was not only fair, but that they could easily display their abilities.
Personally, if I was going to have someone review the videotape, I’d go with magicians and people trained in trickery, but no matter.
I’ve read the ones on your website. They indicate, at worst, poor use of terminology on his part. I don’t see lies or cheating.
Do you evidence of this, like a test that did score 90% or better and was rejected on spurious grounds? I expect Randi would say, in the right circumstances: “That’s not paranormal, you’re quite obviously peeking through the blindfold. Here, let’s use a bigger blindfold that won’t allow you to peek downward alongside your nose…” but I don’t see the basis for your more generic statement, except that it follows from your oft-stated but as-yet unproven contention that Randi is a cheat.
I must be missing something, then. The test as described by Randi was pretty straightforward. Mike’s arguments after the fact are exactly the kinds of justifications that Randi has come to expect, as stated in the Australia video and elsewhere.
I know nothing about Mike G. and prefer not to assume additional information. I’ll take your word for it because it doesn’t really matter. Have you read and understood his proposed protocol for his retest? How is it a better fairer test than what he was subjected to in the JREF offices?
As with quibbles about terminology, I gather you’re being fussy about the wrong things. Randi should be as specific as possible, but no amount of poor writing on his part is going to turn a 90% success rate (as many applicants claim) into a 10% rate. Unless you can claim that he’s actively concealing successes (and that would involve a conspiracy extended beyond Randi himself), at best you’re more literary critic than science critic.
My website isn’t about Randi’s cheating. It’s about my application for a challenge that he set.
Yeah, mentioned earlier in the thread.
Guy named Arthur Lintgen claimed that he could recognise music by examining the grooves on a vinyl record.
Randi didn’t believe him. Dared him to prove it. Thought before the test that he would be unable to do it… Ready to accuse him of being a “self deluded woowoo”
Lingen passed the test. Randi concluded that the ability is real but not paranormal. Even though before the test, he had thought it was paranormal and fake.
. . . And then Randi admitted he was mistaken, like you keep claiming he wouldn’t do. That example says far more against your argument than it does for it, Peter. No one except you is saying that Randi is or even claims to be infallible, not even Randi himself.
I remember seeing Lintgen on That’s Incredible! about 25 years ago. I have to admit, his ability never struck me as as paranormal, but just kinda neat, like those guys who can carve out a detailed model of the New York skyline on a grain of rice. As I understand it, even Lintgen himself never claimed the ability was paranormal, so why would Randi? And why would you assume you know what Randi was thinking?
Actually, I kinda feel sorry for Lintgen given the advent of compact disks.
I don’t see where Randi was mistaken or admitted to being mistaken. He was asked by Time to design a test for Lintgren and then observed said test, presumably to rule out any chance of chicanery. Randi was no more “mistaken” than a figure-skating judge is “mistaken” while observing a skater perform a highly-skilled stunt that perhaps only the skater himself can do. Sooner or later, for example, a skater will be rumoured to be capable of performing a quintuple axel, allegedly having done so in practice. Eventually, everyone will want to see the feat in competition, where the skater will be surrounded by video cameras and subjected to drug tests, looking carefully to ensure the feat was indeed performed and that the skater isn’t enhancing. If he succeeds, it will be very impressive and anyone who said a quintuple was impossible will have to admit they were wrong. When did Randi ever say it was impossible to identify a record from its grooves? I’ll bet it never even occurred to him before hearing about Lintgren.
I took Peter Morris at his word when he said that Randi called the gentlement a self-deluded woowoo. If his statement was incorrect, it does not alter my point, and in fact it makes it stronger.
Well, he said Randi was ready to accuse him of being a self-deluded woowoo which, if not supported by any statement of Randi’s describing what he was thinking at the time, suggests Peter is telepathic or he made it up.
Anyway, sure, Randi makes mistakes. As far as I can tell, though, Randi is never the only person administering a JREF Challenge test. If one assumes Randi is cheating, it would have to expanded into a conspiracy covering other JREF members.
That said, ‘better than chance’ isn’t all that relevant here. The real question is… did they meet their claimed goals? Did they even come close to the performance they gave in the ‘open’ test? That’s what usually happens with dowsers. 100% accuracy in the open test, diving severely once they actually have to perform.
