James Randi and Dry Spots

The BBQ Pit
21

There ain’t much there yet.

I don’t need, or even want, to see everything. A list of all applicants, why they were rejected or accepted, and an outline of the tests of those who were accepted would be nice.

I haven’t seen that; neither have the skeptics. Hence I ask: Why all the faith that Randi is doing a good job with this? It just seems like boosterism.

You’re free to show me the link where he “said” that. His segment was never aired on the show because people called bullshit on what he was trying to do. From what I heard, he tried to pass himself off as a genuine medium/psychic.

22

Why bother. You’ve judged his fairness without examining such records. I have no reason to believe you would judge him differently after actual examination of same. When people tell you unpleasant truths, you have one of two choices-either heed the evidence before you, or run off to those who tell you what you want to hear.

23

Are you saying, right here and right now, that if you saw the list of applicants, the reasons why they were rejected or accepted, and the outlines of the test, and you determined that the test were done fairly, you would then change your mind about psychic abilities and/or ghosts?

24

Agreed - this is perhaps because the last time anyone agreed on what a fair test comprised and actually got tested was 6 months ago. The curret threads detail how prosepective candidates start discussing a fair test and gradually realises that it is cheat-proof and luck-proof, and begins seriously doubting whether their ability would pass it even after a long testing process.

You mean he didn’t go on stage and immediately say “I am not a psychic”? Yes, you may well be right. But I’d suggest that this is surely no more “dishonest” than an undercover policeman pretending to be a drug dealer. And important element of whether psychics really do talk to the dead is whether people believe they do. If admitted cold-readers were as credible as “genuine psychics”, would this not be an important datum?

25

Not at all. I’ve come to the conclusion that psi and ghosts are real based on data I’ve seen elsewhere. Randi’s file may indeed indicate that none of his applicants have proved their cases. They may also prove that he has rejected people fairly. But a lack of data there as to psi or ghosts does not make the data presented elsewhere any less valuable.

26

Then basically what you’re saying is,“I demand you show me everything you’ve got, but I have no intention of using this information to form an opinion-my mind is already made up.” If this is true, why should we bother to show you anything?

27

This is shown in reproduced newspaper articles in the back of his first book. He demonstrated how easily the media was fooled.

Another time, he wrote an astrology column for a weekly newspaper by pulling cut-out words from a hat. He thought it would make a funny joke that everyone would get. To his shock he found out that people were commenting on how accurate the horoscope was. He gave it up.

These bits are well covered in detail, but its always easier to drip something in innuendo by saying the way Aeschines does.

Another skeptic (Kurtz I beleive) put himself through college reading tarot cards. He actually thought there was something to it until his roommate challenged him to tell his clients the exact opposite of what the cards were ‘telling’ him and see what happens. Kurtz did this and found his clients were still stunned by his amazing revelations. He gave up fortuen telling.

28

In several of Randi’s books, particularly Flim-Flam there are write-ups of challengers that came to the final testing stage. The details of how the tests were run are fairly well covered. There is nothing wrong with how they were tested.

There is little reason to believe that Randi has changed his methods int he interveneing years due to some newage breakthrough resulting in him having to cheat.

I’d like to see records to, but I also am certain that most of them are going to be “applicant backed out”. Look at the alien rock guy (dalton?), he ‘backed out’ by making a ludicrous demand for what was a simple test. There was another would-be challenger I saw on USENET years ago who made demands about what was to be done with the money before any tests were run. Ed Dames of remote viewing fame tried to use Art Bell to weasel out of several conditions of the challenge application before any negotiations took place, or even before he signed the application form. Then there was the homeopathic nutter who managed to convince some slightly saner naturapaths to negotiate test conditions via email. When it looked like a test might actually be run, the homeopath started spamming the email participants with huge screed messages and accusing Randi of murder. I ain’t making this shit up, folks. The naturopaths gave up in disgust with the homeopath.

These must be your new heroes Aeschines.

29

The sad thing about all this is that I, too (like any normal person) hate frauds and am more than happy to see Randi expose them. When he tests kooks and has to inform them that their abilities don’t exist, that’s fine too (although he ought to be gentle with the genuinely mentally ill). All these experiments are interesting and potentially valuable, but I have many questions. How does Randi propose testing “big-hit” psi–things like remote viewing or mediumship? Constructing tests for such things is really hard. I think Randi does himself and his cause a disservice by taking the attitudes he does.

Well, for one thing, before I answer your questions, you’ve got to understand the New Age perspective. If you get up on stage and say you’re something you’re not, then you’re a liar and you’re spreading negativity. If you say you do cold reading and succeed in getting people to be impressed with your ability, then your purposely lying to those people and, again, spreading negativity. That is why New Agers have a such a vehement reaction to Randi’s tactics. And they would have the same reaction against any medium or psychic who used cheating at any time. Personally, I think John Edward is making a big mistake with what he does. Nobody can guarantee a performance on command like that, day in day out. Saying you can just isn’t right. This has led a lot of pyschics into error. They say they can perform at will and then settle for half-baked readings or outright cheating to effect the consistency that native ability cannot otherwise provide. Then the skeptics and debunkers swoop down, understandably, and accuse them of 100% cheating.

As to the question of cold reading and the potential for a “datum,” I think the issue is extremely complicated. Cold reading involves a wide range of skills that we do use–must use–in interacting with people on a daily basis. It involves reading body language, using logical inference, etc. And even some of the more devious of the techniques, such as fishing for information, we use even when we’re not trying to play psychic. Even when a genuine psychic is doing a reading, some elements of the cold reading are going to be present. On the other hand, an intelligent and intuitive person could get very far on cold reading alone. It’s a genuine issue. I think a lot of self-styled psychics out there have a little ability but then throw in a goodly dose of cold reading as filler. Still, there are some psychics and mediums out there that, on occasion, come up with such incredible hits that cold reading cannot serve as an explanation.

As for Randi, he entered the studio with lots of hot reading tips that he and his assistants, whoever, got from various sources about the audience members. So it would not have been a pure cold read and would not have served adequately as a datum.

30

If you are going to claim that Randi’s experiments are good and fair, then I should think that you yourself would like to see the same records that I do.

If you were to show me the records I believed that Randi conducted the test fairly, then I would say so. I will go so far as saying right now that, of the tests he does conduct, most are probably fair. I’m more concerned about the people he rejects or who reject his offers of a test. They might have abilities for which experiments are quite difficult to design.

31

There ya go.

I readily concede that most of the people applying for Randi’s test are bona fide nutters. I also readily concede that most of the tests Randi does are likely to be fair, or at least not expressly unfair.

But I would need to see the records for his test in order to really know. So would the skeptics here. Some of his conditions can be too stringent–regardless whether the addled people who accept them accept them. A dowser accepting a requirement of 100% accuracy and thinking he can do it. Would Randi have accepted 80%? 75% What is reasonable? I’d need to see the records to know.

We sure do talk about Randi a lot, though, don’t we? That’s not my choice. The skeptics always bring up his challenge, and it just proceeds from there.

32

Let’s not turn things around just to make Randi look like a tightass, o.k.? It was the claiment that boasted a 100% accuracy rate, and Randi who agreed to those conditions, not the other way around. For the record, btw, did the applicant come close to 80% or 75%, or did he do just slightly better(or worse) than average? What’s the real story?

33

I believe the starting point is to again give the candidate 10 options. For remote viewers, there would be 10 clearly distinguished objects at 10 different positions, with the coordinates and a description of those positions given to the candidate. The remote viewer would “see” the correct objects better than chance. For mediums, a summary of the complete life and family history of 10 different women of similar age would be given to the medium, who then met each woman (but couldn’t ask them questions!), and had to match the women up with the descriptions.

Again, this is only a starting point. Any modification can be suggested, so long as the test remains cheat-proof and luck-proof.

34

It’s an issue. There are some who would love to suggest that I am some sort of Randi groupie who thinks he’s a deity who can do no wrong. I have thought about the possibility that Randi is an illusionist and perhaps his whole Challenge thing could be his single greatest, longest running illusion. No one would think it was funnier, if it were true, than me. But I’ve reached my conclusion to the contrary as under.

There seem to me to be two big issues. Firstly does Randi make it impossible for applicants by refusing to agree a fair protocol? Secondly do applicants pass but Randi somehow manage to deny this or wriggle out of it?

As to the first point, if Randi does make it impossible for applicants by refusing to agree to a fair protocol where are all the detailed and reasonable complaints? Let’s suppose that Randi did this. What would we expect to see? Randi’s negotiations of protocol seem to be in writing, usually by email. We all know how badly woo woos would love to discredit Randi. There’s no confidentiality binding applicants. Where are all the posted exchanges between Randi and applicants in which Randi proposes unfair protocols and refuses to budge? There are and have been over the years hundreds of applicants. The internet should be awash with complaints, in which potential applicants lay out Randi’s perfidy in detail.

Instead, what we see is the very, very occasional petty nitpick, such that even the most trivial example of Randi arguably not living up to his usual high standard gets pored over and discussed by sceptics and woo woos endlessly. And what’s more, more than a few sceptics (including this one) are quite prepared to give Randi a bit of a serve if we think that he has done something even slightly less than ideal (witness the breatharian saga). Despite what some might say about our alleged close mindedness.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard a woo woo say “Randi’s a shit, Randi’s a fraud, Randi’s tests are all unfair” but when you ask for details they vanish in a puff of vagary, bombast, pedantry and twaddle.

The simple clear examples of Randi’s supposedly unfair tests should be out there in their hundreds, instead they barely exist.

For mine, the conclusion that fits with the facts is that Randi sets fair tests, and when woo woos can’t pass them they go vewy vewy quiet.

Then there’s the second thing: does Randi set fair tests then simply refuse to acknowlege applicants that pass?

My answer to that is: are all US trial lawyers a bunch of timid pansies who have no interest in money? I think we all know the answer to that.

Randi enters into a binding contract with applicants to the effect that if they pass he will give them a million. The tests are recorded. The applicants can and do have independant observers standing by.

If Randi just refused to pay out, the foundation would be one million dollars poorer pretty much as fast as you can say “summary judgment”.

No, the suggestion that the JREF challenge is all a fraud just doesn’t stack up, not based on faith, not based on boosterism, just based on the evidence.

35

Agreed: the central question here is how do we tell the difference between a cold-reader and a genuine psychihc? What evidence would convince you of such?

This is why we must all discuss what a fair test comprises. If we all largely agree, the question would then be: why no famous takers?

36

I’m not sure I see where you are going with this. A New Ager would (if what you say is correct) dislike the means by which Randi fooled people by cold reading. Would that mean he did not fool them by cold reading?

What is your point?

37

That may be the case. It’s still nutty–100%.

The applicant got 10%–what one would expect from chance. I gave a detailed analysis of this in another thread. Basically, the very terms of the challege prevent a truly “fair” (i.e., psi is in theory proven) result. Basically, with a cool mil at stake Randi stands to lose money (mathematical expectation) right up to 1/1,000,000 odds (actually, he stands to lose money at any odds, but the sum would be less than a penny). But psi could be “proved” (or the guy could just get damn lucky) at odds well below that. And I think that’s the rub.

38

You’ll have to explain this rub rather better, Aeschines.

39

What’s with the term “woo woo”? That’s what Mel Brooks referred to the cunt as in the movie High Anxiety.

At any rate, let’s see the records! We don’t even know how many cases he’s tested. How many accepted and how many rejected? It’s very basic stuff. As to the fairness of it all, rather than trusting in your argument above, a simple list as to who had been rejected and who had been accepted would quell most doubts.

Personally, I do not have a big beef with his challenge–on the whole. Most psi is “big hit psi” that does not lend itself to neatly quantifiable experiments, so I assume he’s not going to be able to accept those applicants. The records might say otherwise. Psi that works in neatly quantifiable ways has the “rub” that I mentioned above: mathematical expectation makes it difficult to set realistic requirements. These two factors in combination render the challenge pretty much irrelevent.

People with big-hit psi powers will not apply. People will psi that does not always work on command are not going to apply.

Well, I don’t think the test is “fraud.” It just might not be a good fit with the psi that it is trying to challenge.

40

Not consistently: the $1M requires several stages of testing to eradicate the effects of a “lucky afternoon”. Nobody has passed the first stage yet.