ok, off to prove someone wrong…again.
Randi’s test specs
Like I said before, Randi’s test are contingent on many factors that couldn’t be deemed that quickly in the interview. That’s why he needed a statistician. But go to the site listed above, in case it’s too bogus to leave this site, here’s a quote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
ahh, darn it.
Here’s the full quote…
**
I can't remember the name of the program in question. I think it was aired mid to late 80's.
Randi tested-an aura reader, a psychometrist, and a dowser.
The reader was allowed to select 10 people from the hundreds in the audience. She chose people who, she claimed, had auras that were bright and extended at least 12 inches from their bodies. The people were then placed behind a wall with numbered segments. Their physical bodies were not visible over the wall, but auras extending a foot over their heads would be. A hit was defined as her correctly stating whether a segment had a person behind it or not. Randi said how many predictions their would be and what how many times the reader could miss without failing the test. First, all 10 people stood behind the wall so that the reader could be sure that she could see their auras. She stated that she could. The aura reader alos asked that orange lights sweep the area between readings in order to clear the area of any residual aura. This was done. The reader failed.
Hit and miss clearly defined. Testing conditions agreed upon by "psychic". Test broadcast live and observed by studio audience.
The psychometrist selected individuals whom he felt would leave strong psychic imprints. These people placed their keys and wallets on the table. Certain things, such as ID, were removed from the wallets but the psychometrist had stated that this would not affect the pyschic energy traces left on the wallets. Randi said that the psychometrist was to match the keys with the wallets. He stated that correctly matching a person’s keys with their wallet was a hit. He stated how many hits constituted evidence of psychic ability. The pyschometrist went to work. Randi asked the volunteers to get their keys(which were tied to wallets). He then asked for all volunteers holding their keys and wallets to raise their hands. The pyschometrist failed the test.
Hit and miss clearly defined. Testing conditions agreed upon by "pyschic". Test broadcast live and observed by studio audience.
The dowser was named Forrest Bayes. He required the test to be conducted outside so that natural energies could flow. The test was conducted in a parking lot which Bayes had approved as being free from any water which would interfere with the test. Boxes were placed under small wooden bridge(which was part of the testing apparatus and not the lot). Some boxes contained bottled water. Others contained the same weight as the water. Bayes walked over the bridge with two dowsing rods. If he felt a box contained water, he made an elaborate mark on it. A hit was defined as any box Bayes marked containing water. Randi stated the total number of boxes tested. He stated how many misses meant failure. The boxes were opened on stage afte Bayes had inspected them and was satisfied that they had not been tampered with. He failed within IIRC the first five boxes being opened.
Hit and miss clearly defined. Testing conditions agreed to beforehand by Bayes. Neutral observers present during initial testing. Boxes opened in presence of same observers and on live television.
**
I know that you’re wrong. More, I have just proven you to be wrong. Read your statements that Randi never discloses methods, statistics, defines hits, or allows neutral observers. Now, read what I just posted. You are wrong. QED
**
I’ve been giving you the truth since my first post in your NDE thread. You insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I’m not listening!”.
**
If you would stop clinging to all those lies I could change them for the truth. Pyschic powers are very real. But with your closed mind and Pseudotheizine poisoning, you’ll never see them let alone possess them.
And that’s the truth.
I find a few of those answers incredibly hard to believe. Heart attack with no breathing problems? One of the primary symptoms of a heart attack is chest pains and a problem breathing. Did he have no symptoms at all?
The first rosebush was provided by the caller. You can’t very well have a second rose bush without having a first one, now can you? That call was in responce to a specific condition of the caller, and in reaction to what the caller said. Since you’ve already said your dad did not plant a rosebush, then it wouldn’t have even been mentioned. The rosebush call doesn’t apply here.
The house does not have to be your house, or your parent’s house. It could also be anyone you know; Friends, co-workers, etc. She was quite clear that it might not be a family member moving.
I also have a very hard time believing nobody in your family has “ever” died from cancer, when the furthest back you go is two generations. At least one caller had to go back further than that, so it certainly doesn’t have to be durring your lifetime.
Further, your reply seems not only unlikely, but contradictory. Your grandfather died at war, but nobody in your family ever wore a uniform? I suppose he could be a civilian killed durring the war, but the way you worded that seems to imply that he was participating in it. Could you clarify? And to clarify another thing, “uniform” does not necesarily mean millitary uniform. It could be Burger King for all the reader said.
And as for the young woman, I’ll just say the same thing the psychic said… I’m sure there was one. Go ask your relatives, they’ll be able to help you figure it out… 
That’s just a flat-out lie. Randi and the psychic he tests agree before the test starts how the test will be conducted, and how success will be measured. For dowsing, the person has to find the target X out of Y tries. For telepathy, the psychic has to make X right calls out of Y tries, sometimes with the condition that his success with the target is Z amount higher than the same questions applied to a controll group (Which again, the methods of selecting are agreed upon before hand).
The ENTIRE LIST OF CONDITIONS are laid out and agreed upon before hand. It’s certainly a more fair test than the psychic’s test, judged by a pannel of annonymous, unknown judges. You keep bringing that one up, then complaining about Randi being unfair?
I’m starting to agree with Princhester. You seem to be filtering out everything you don’t want to see…
notes stpauler’s post, going over the details of the challenge much better than his own post
mutters Preview is my friend…
lekatt, Randi does not have a “statistical method.” Statistical significance (i.e. staistical success which is significantly greater than that which can be attributed to to chance) is determined by specific mathematical formulae. The formulae for statistical significance are dependent on the size of the sample and the statistics for random chance. In a binary system (let’s say coin tosses) statistical chance is, of course, fifty percent, but a normal range on a bell curve would vary somewhat on either side of this. Statistical significance means that you have a result which would fall outside of this range. The larger the sample, the easier it is to determine statistical significance, but there are formulae (with a greater margin of error) for smaller samples. In a binary test with a sample of eighty (as suggested by Randi) you would have to actually find the correct formula and do the math to find out how many correct hits out of 80 would qualify as statistically significant. It’s kind of a complicated formula, and for a sample as small as 80 you would need a pretty high hit rate to get outside the normal range of chanceand the margin for error. It’s not a formula that can be easily determined or worked out in one’s head while being interviewed on national television. This is why Randi said the formula would be determined by a statistician, because it has to be. My point with all this is that a passing score on a test like that is determined by objective mathematical methods, they are not set arbitrarily or with any slant. Statistical significance is an empirically verifiable fact. It is not an opinion.
I did want to say that, if I saw genuine evidence that I would believe. I think that’s what you were implying, but I wanted to clear it up just the same.
The truth is: Our military ran a “psychic” program for about 17 years. If you think they ran it for purposes of peace and love you are fooling yourself.
Watching the debate between GOM and lekatt causes me as much uncomfortable amusement as watching a blind boxing match.
Sorry the link to the psychics part doesn’t work,
Why bother to take up for him, He will not submit to an honest test.
What I want is a sample test, and how Randi grades it, then we can have an independent source test it and see how it works.
We can also determine if it is fair, by the percentages we mean.
It the Duke University tests they knew what the odds were in readings we can’t calculate the odds so easy.
70% in 2% odds seems a bit high.
Now you are calling me a liar about my own family, as if you knew more about my family than I did. This is typical of the arrogance and egotism displayed by skeptics. After all, if it doesn’t fit your expectations call the person a liar.
Thanks but you are wrong. And until you can prove through a third party cold readings mean something they will remain BS.
If you would like to put some money on that no one in my family died from cancer I … forget it, you would just say I was lying. I forgot you don’t accept personal experience, anodotal, eye-witness, science studies or any other form of proof other than your own. This makes it simple to win doesn’t it.
Just forget the thread, forget everything and go back to sleep.
God will wake you up when the time comes.
Love
Leroy
Love
Leroy
The analysis of Praagh on Larry King was pretty telling. He supplied no information, rather he asked questions and the caller gave all the info he wanted, including some he didn’t specifically ask for, and the “psychic” responded with unverifiable statements and a few guesses, which were wrong.
Really, at some point there’s no way to believe in these guys if one can read and is willing to think about what’s actually happening.
Whether or not the government tested psychics is one thing. That they found any credible evidence of psychic ability is another.
That the tests may have gone on for 17 years is proof of nothing, except possibly that the testers didn’t want to lose their budget and cushy jobs.
The link worked fine for me, yesterday when I posted it at home, and today when I linked to it through a firewall at work. here it is again…I’m SURE it works What I don’t understand is, why you don’t think it’s not an honest test. Before the test is administered, it’s methodology is agreed upon WITH THE PSYCHIC! THE PSYCHIC GIVES CONSENT TO THE RULES. I wish I could post the whole link here so you wouldn’t have any more “excuses”…grrr.
Every single thing she said applied to my father’s death. I’m a believer now. I mean a sucker.
People who seek out psychics to contact the dead usually do so for a reason. Therefore, the audience sampled is skewed even more than usual to provide answers to the general utility type of information provided by the so-called psychics.
Who ever died breathing well?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lekatt *
Now you are calling me a liar about my own family, as if you knew more about my family than I did. This is typical of the arrogance and egotism displayed by skeptics. After all, if it doesn’t fit your expectations call the person a liar.
[quote]
I don’t claim you’re lying, but think about it for a minute. Can you say, with no room for error that *nobody * in your family has ever died of cancer? I can’t say that about my own family. How many generations back are you sure about? How many uncles, aunts and cousins deaths do you have records on? The caller in the example given had to go back three generations in order to connect somebody to the claim from the psychic. How many generations are there in your family tree, after all?
Proven. You just refuse to accept the proof.
I’d put money on it. If I had access to all your family death records, for…let’s say, 3 generations back, including tangential relations; uncles, aunts, cousins, it’s quite likely at least one did die of cancer. Again, I don’t think you’re lying, just not in possession of all the facts.
Lekatt, what do you think science is? You’ve been given access to studies here that refute your claims completely, yet you disregard them because, and I quote: you don’t accept personal experience, anodotal, eye-witness, science studies or any other form of proof other than your own.
Your “studies” are not science at all. You are completely willing to base everything on anecdote and personal experience, (and you don’t even understand how the judicial system works, with regard to those things) but you won’t even consider any evidence other than that which agrees with your beliefs, even if it’s overwhelming.
Better yet, lekatt, WAKE UP!
99 times out of 100 there is no need from grading. Either the spoon bends or it doesn’t (as it didn’t with one of Hasting’s students when Randi simply blackened the bowl), the dowser find things or he doesn’t (as many a dowser has failed to do when simple double-blind controls are applied.) The Russian girl reads the newspaper blindolded or she doesn’t (She didn’t when Randi applied tape to the bridge of her nose to prevent an old magiciaas trick called the nacked peek).
These are all examples on Randi’s website and in his books. These samples were easily availbale had you actaully looked for them.
Depends on what you are loking for. Dowsers claim a rate of 90-100% when chance is 10-20%. Randi usually talks them down to 70%
Are you referring to Duke University’s Ganzfeld tests? Please specify.
No, I’m saying that a few of those examples are well outside common sense, and in a few cases, contradictory, and asked for clarification. You’re refusing to give clarification. I’m not surprised.
I also question how far back you’re going. How can you say for certainty that nobody in your entire family has ever died of cancer, when you say you don’t even have full details on family two generations older, much less more? At least one of the callers was expected to go back further than that to get a hit… The chances of nobody ever dying of cancer, in the entire history of your family line, are as close to zero as one can get.
He’s simply asking you to extend your search to other relatives and previous generations.
For example-
My father is chubby and AFAIK has never planted a rosebush. Both of my parents are only children. So, I have no uncles. My maternal grandfather was also chubby and AFAIK never planted a rosebush. My paternal grandfather however, was slim, kept a large garden, and did plant bushes at my parent’s house as a gift.
Althea says that the figure may be a father BUT that it may also be a grandfather or similiar relative. That broadens the search to uncles, great uncles etc. The description may even be interpreted as referring to an adopted uncle. I’ve known Zoe, Andrew, and Elaine since they were born. Although we are in no way relatives, they all call me uncle.
If Althea’s reading really doesn’t fit you, then a more thorough search shouldn’t make a difference.
I should have said “Although they are not related to me by birth or by marriage.”
In a very real way, Zoe, Elaine, and Andrew are my nieces and nephew.
When anybody mentions dinosaurs, Andrew tells them that the dinosaurs died when a big rock fell out of the sky. People ask his parents where a four year old learned that. They reply 'From his Uncle Cathode.'
That wonderful bond is yet another thing exploited by frauds like Praagh and Edward. By implying that they see a relative, they broaden the field. A relative is any one linked to you by a common ancestor. The "psychic" can claim a third cousin you only met 4 times as a hit. They can claim an in-law whose name you can hardly remember. Worse, they can claim any person who you loved enough to call family.