Randi is an entertainer. There is no getting away from that. Many people consider his entertainment very worthwhile, but in a serious debate about paranormal activity his pronouncements might be considered to be tainted with bias by an impartial observer. He is, in my view, therefore a distraction.
What is not a distration is the application of the Scientific Method to test any hypothesis. A scientist could guarantee himself fame and fortune if he were able to prove paranormal ability was a real phenomenon using the Scientific Method. No such proof has ever been established. That is what leads this sceptic of paranormal activity to conclude it simply does not exist.
The point is that New Agers don’t see Randi’s trickery in the service of a “higher cause” as excusable. I was also trying to explain why he is hated so much by us. New Agers don’t generally go out of their way to hate atheists. We really don’t like people whom we perceive as dishonest and “spreading darkness.” Yeah, I know it’s hard to understand.
I disagree. It’s now known that faith healers and such people can heal: it’s called the “placebo effect.” But now that it’s been proven it’s just an oh-so-ordinary phemenon, nothing special. It’s just as “paranormal” as anything else we can’t explain.
New Agers don’t like people that spread dishonesty? Now why would anyone find that hard to understand? Cough Sylvia, John Edward, Uri Gellar and multitudes more
Actually maybe I see what you’re saying, but if I’m understanding you right I don’t see how this is a problem with the challenge. You’re saying that someone could pass the challenge but not prove anything because they may have just got lucky. True enough. But all that amounts to is (a) if someone passes the challenge they won’t have proved psi but they’ll have gone some way towards it and (b) if they don’t pass the challenge that throws doubt on psi.
Which amounts to: the challenge is useful but not definitive. I’m happy enough with that.
It is, yes. I’m not at all sure the fault lies with me, though. I don’t see why fooling some people to make a point, then admitting what you’ve done immediately afterwards, is particularly obnoxious.
It’s my own term, but basically it refers to psi events whose probability is very hard to estimate. If I were able to tell you your dog’s name, his birthdate, and, I don’t know, the color of his collar–was that just a lucky guess, or was it psi? It’s hard to measure.
It’s pretty simple. Mathematical expectation is the probability of the event happening times the value of that event. The value of succeeding in the challenge is $1M: a lot of dough. If Randi accepts lets someone take the challenge with 1/1000 odds of success on the event, then he stands to lose $1,000,000/1,000 = $1,000. That is a losing proposition for him.
So what if a psychic came in and said, “I can find a jewel hidden in a black box.” So even if Randi sets up 1,000 black boxes in a gymnasium with just one jewel hidden therein, he still stands to lose $1,000. Or, to put it another way, if were to test 1,000 applicants with this test he will probably lose his $1,000,000.
Similar odds would be guessing heads or tails correctly for 10 times in a row (1/1024).
How many psychics claim to be that good? Not that many, I would guess. So basically Randi has to require astronomical odds in order to keep his mil, whereas most pyschics don’t have that level of ability and never claim that they do. But they still should be considered psychic if they regularly perform above chance.
The placebo effect does not fit into this definition.
Let me clarify. If a telepathist was demonstrated to have some special ability to read minds, it might be because of two reasons:
He had an ability that had a normal scientific explanation (analgous to the placebo effect in your example), for example he was unusually gifted at reading facial expression.
He had a paranormal ability. It was demonstrable under laboratory conditions that he could read thoughts and there was no scientific explanation that could account for it.
The first scenario would be interesting and that would be the end of it. The second scenario would have such profound implications that the telepathist would become world famous and rich beyond the dreams of Croesus.
Actually, Aeschines, I note that David Blaine merely says “it’s not what you think” in relation to his card tricks. If Randi performed a similar card trick, would you expect him to say explicitly beforehand “I am about to show you an example of simple sleight-of-hand”? Would he be being “dishonest and negative” if he didn’t?
I don’t really understand this. You seem to put people in little boxes and attribute taint to them depending upon the box you have put them in, rather than their actions.
Scientists aren’t saints. They have their worldly motivations too, you know.
Doing a double blind test is not rocket science. You don’t need a PhD to administer one.
It’s a double blind test whether you do it, I do it, a scientist does it or James Z. Randi does it.
And if your point is that the perception of Randi as being biased is the problem then I could as easily point to some of the more gullible/unethical scientists who believe in and purport to have proven the paranormal: the perception that they are qualified and able because they are scientists is the problem.
Well, I just said that I wasn’t happy with John Edward, as I don’t think anyone can perform that consistently and he shouldn’t promise it.
Uri Gellar is extremely flaky, if nothing else. He’s a showman and an over-self-promoter like Randi (and many other psychics, to be fair), and I don’t find that to be particularly appealing.
Jean Dixon, for example, is outright obvious crap; so are many others. Some have talent but are delusional at the same time. So have talent but cheat all the same.
Randi is “spreading darkness?” I believe it to be the other way around. The New Age types keep running around trying to suck people back into the darkness where ghosts and demons and non-existant powers do all kinds of amazing things when no one is looking. Randi is trying to stop that.
As far as why the New agers hate the guy, I’d say that is just because he is very plain-spoken and is willing to use the term “bullshit” when the word is appropriate instead of being mealy-mouthed about the matter.
Bolding mine. The testing timescale is determined by the claims of the applicant, and under Popper’s principle can ONLY be FALSIFIED.
There is a statistical term of critical importance here: significance. The black-box guesser or coin-caller must show that the effect is significant.
If the 1/1000 guesser claims, say, a 50% success rate, this can be falsified in an afternoon. If he claims a 0.2% success rate, which is still better than chance, he would have to submit to weeks or months of testing.
It was indeed the perception of Randi that was my point.
You are correct that not all scientists can be viewed as being ethical. The perception of their work in their peer group is important. For this reason, a scientific theory will only be widely accepted when it has been peer reviewed and published in a respected journal.
There’s also a divergence of objective outcome and claimed paranormal method that you are glossing over.
I am yet to meet or hear of any faith healer, homeopath, naturopath, aromatherapist whatever who will admit, even off the record when there are no patients about, that their method is unimportant and that it all works on placebo effect.
They do not admit this at all, they claim that their hocus actually matters.
Uri Geller is indeed rich. He is rich because he is an entertainer. If he had an ability that could not be explained by science, he could make himself much richer still. I suspect he will continue to display his abilities on TV rather than in a laboratory, however.
Yes, but while in the little scientific world this is adhered to, outside of that little world perceptions are quite different.
I think Randi is closer to being the main game than a distraction. I don’t like that, any more than I suspect you like that. But that’s the way I see it in practical terms.