# Peter Morris and Randi **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 2, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164 "2011-03-02T04:36:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/21 "2011-03-02T18:55:57Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > FWIW, I think Randi is a quasi-fraud, in the sense that he runs misleading tests and misrepresents the results. The point at issue here is that for some reason many people are unable to distinguish between the following: > > [ul] > [li]does Randi owe the contestants the prize money?[/li][li]do the test results prove that the tested phenomena don’t exist?[/li][/ul] That second item doesn’t make any sense to me. Shouldn’t it be: do the test results support that the disputed phenomenon _does_ exist? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/22 "2011-03-02T18:57:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Before asking me to go running around trying to find cites, do you really disagree with this? What do you think the purpose of his prize is?I doubt if he has ever done this. > > You appear to have misunderstood my post. And you don’t have a leg to stand on, period. I understand your post-you wish to make unsubstantiated claims that can(and have)easily be proven wrong. _All_ tests run by JREF are run in the manner I have described, and to claim otherwise is denying well-established fact. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/23 "2011-03-02T19:05:52Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > That second item doesn’t make any sense to me. Shouldn’t it be: do the test results support that the disputed phenomenon _does_ exist? No. For example, suppose a phenomenon (ESP, dowsing, whatever) is succesful 10% of the time, while the laws of chance would suggest it should be successful 1% of the time. That is a real phenomenon. But suppose Randi insists on a test that is judged to be a success if the phenomenon is successful 99% of the time, and the participant is actually successful 20% of the time. Randi does not owe the guy the money, but he also has not proved that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. [Of course, he may well have disproved the specific powers of this participant, if the guy is running around claiming to be 99% successful. But representing to the public at large that the test results show that the phenomenon doesn’t exist is a misrepresentation.] > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And you don’t have a leg to stand on, period. I understand your post-you wish to make unsubstantiated claims that can(and have)easily be proven wrong. _All_ tests run by JREF are run in the manner I have described, and to claim otherwise is denying well-established fact. Strangely I can’t find that you’ve described anything at all in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/24 "2011-03-02T19:08:40Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > For example, suppose a phenomenon (ESP, dowsing, whatever) is succesful 10% of the time, while the laws of chance would suggest it should be successful 1% of the time. That is a real phenomenon. But suppose Randi insists on a test that is judged to be a success if the phenomenon is successful 99% of the time, and the participant is actually successful 20% of the time. Randi does not owe the guy the money, but he also has not proved that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. If the person demonstrating the phenomenon agreed to that test, they’re an idiot. And come to that, Randi is not the only game in town. If someone can demonstrate a phenomenon statistically significantly above chance, they _will_ have publicity, all the more so for being able to discredit Randi. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/25 "2011-03-02T19:09:05Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Randi does not owe the guy the money, but he also has not proved that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. And Mr. Randi doesn’t make this claim, so what is your problem? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/26 "2011-03-02T19:15:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > FWIW, I think Randi is a quasi-fraud, in the sense that he runs misleading tests and misrepresents the results. Which misleading tests has he run? Which results has he misrepresented? > [@](#): > > Randi controls all the cards because he’s the one offering the money. So he makes tests that are hard to pass _even if the phenomenon has some validity_. The participant invariably fails the tests, and Randi doesn’t give him the prize. This is valid. Ignorance. First, Randi doesn’t have the money, it’s held in escrow. He doesn’t control anything once the test actually begins. Second, Randi doesn’t make the tests, the claimants do. The person applying for the prize has to state what he can do, and then both Randi’s organization and the claimant have to agree on the test protocol. Yes, Randi insists the tests be scientific, otherwise, what’s the point? If you’re going to try to claim that Randi comes up with insane requirements for the tests and that’s why claimants fail it, then why do the claimants agree to it at all? > [@](#): > > Then Randi holds the failure up to the world as a proof that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. This is not valid. Randi doesn’t hold up one failure as proof. He holds up 100s or 1000s of failures, not a single actual verifiable success, and a complete lack of evidence for the phenomenon and says the phenomenon does not exist. You are either ignorant of what is actually done by the JREF in these tests, or are deliberately misrepresenting what happens. Either way, you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/27 "2011-03-02T19:18:36Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > If the person demonstrating the phenomenon agreed to that test, they’re an idiot. And come to that, Randi is not the only game in town. If someone can demonstrate a phenomenon statistically significantly above chance, they _will_ have publicity, all the more so for being able to discredit Randi. Three points. [ol] [li]I tossed out those specific numbers to illustrate the general logical issue, they could be closer.[/li][li]The person doesn’t have a choice. Randi is not going to agree to anything that has even a slight chance of success due to random chance. (I believe he even writes in a clause that he can redo the test if the testee wins.) For the participant, it’s a free lottery, with a non-zero chance of winning. But you have a zero chance of winning if you turn down the offer in a squabble over terms.[/li][li]A lot of these people being tested are idiots. There are idiots all over the world, and among people claiming paranormal powers, more so than average. But again, the point at issue here is not anything about these specific people, but about the potential existence of these powers themselves.[/li][/ol] ETA: I believe this addresses most of hotflungwok’s points as well. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/28 "2011-03-02T19:21:49Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Randi doesn’t hold up one failure as proof. He holds up 100s or 1000s of failures, not a single actual verifiable success, and a complete lack of evidence for the phenomenon and says the phenomenon does not exist. I don’t believe Randi has done 100s or 1000s of these contests. And AFAIK they’re all done the same way, as above. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/29 "2011-03-02T19:23:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > ETA: I believe this addresses most of hotflungwok’s points as well. It doesn’t. Try answering his first 2 questions. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/30 "2011-03-02T19:23:50Z")
[quote=“Fotheringay-Phipps, post:27, topic:573164”] [li]The person doesn’t have a choice. Randi is not going to agree to anything that has even a slight chance of success due to random chance. (I believe he even writes in a clause that he can redo the test if the testee wins.) For the participant, it’s a free lottery, with a non-zero chance of winning. But you have a zero chance of winning if you turn down the offer in a squabble over terms.[/li][/QUOTE] If there is a genuine gift, then random chance should not be a factor. Take the dowsing phenomenon. There are 10 samples of dirt, with a small pool of water hidden randomly under one. The test is to correctly choose which sample has the water, repeated X number of times. If the person is simply picking randomly, statistically they’ll have a 10% success rate. Claiming to have a 20% success rate is not statistically significant nor is it very interesting anyway. 50% is more interesting and indicates there may be something to it, and would probably be an agreeable cutoff. But even then, you would think that a genuine gift should be able to score 90-100% on this test, wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/31 "2011-03-02T19:25:06Z")
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps] don’t believe Randi has done 100s or 1000s of these contests. And AFAIK they’re all done the same way, as above. [/QUOTE] It’s showing that what you believe doesn’t jive with reality. [Even wikipedia explains it in simple detail:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation#History_of_the_challenge) To claim, one must agree to a protocol for testing, must show in a preliminary test before a foundation representative that they are likely to succeed, and finally make a demonstration in a formal test in front of independent witnesses.[12] To date, \*\*over 1,000 applications have been filed but no one has passed a preliminary test, \*\*which is set up and agreed upon by both Randi and the applicant. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/32 "2011-03-02T19:25:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t believe Randi has done 100s or 1000s of these contests. And AFAIK they’re all done the same way, as above. You’ve shown us how much you know, since most of it is contradicted by easily obtainable facts. Have you even bothered to go to the JREF website to read the terms for entering the Million Dollar Challenge? I’d like to know if you are merely totally ignorant of the facts of the matter. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/33 "2011-03-02T19:30:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t believe Randi has done 100s or 1000s of these contests. And AFAIK they’re all done the same way, as above. Do you enjoy playing the fool? I’ll admit you are quite entertaining as one in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/34 "2011-03-02T19:43:03Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > If there is a genuine gift, then random chance should not be a factor. > > Take the dowsing phenomenon. There are 10 samples of dirt, with a small pool of water hidden randomly under one. The test is to correctly choose which sample has the water, repeated X number of times. If the person is simply picking randomly, statistically they’ll have a 10% success rate. Claiming to have a 20% success rate is not statistically significant nor is it very interesting anyway. 50% is more interesting and indicates there may be something to it, and would probably be an agreeable cutoff. But even then, you would think that a genuine gift should be able to score 90-100% on this test, wouldn’t you? No, I don’t. There are a lot of things that have some validity but are not perfect. Would you prove that x-rays are a hoax if they miss some things? Obviously, if a guy is claiming that his dowsing ability works 100% of the time, and he can’t show that, then his specific claims have been disproved. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to the phenomenon itself, much like many many other natural phenomenon which are not completely predictable. > [@stpauler](#): > > It’s showing that what you believe doesn’t jive with reality. > > [Even wikipedia explains it in simple detail:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation#History_of_the_challenge) > > To claim, one must agree to a protocol for testing, must show in a preliminary test before a foundation representative that they are likely to succeed, and finally make a demonstration in a formal test in front of independent witnesses.[12] To date, \*\*over 1,000 applications have been filed but no one has passed a preliminary test, \*\*which is set up and agreed upon by both Randi and the applicant. To the contrary. 1000 applications is not the same thing as “100s or 1000s of these contests”. (Which is besides for the fact that these tests are not all of the same phenomenon.) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/35 "2011-03-02T19:46:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, I don’t. There are a lot of things that have some validity but are not perfect. > > Would you prove that x-rays are a hoax if they miss some things? > > Obviously, if a guy is claiming that his dowsing ability works 100% of the time, and he can’t show that, then his specific claims have been disproved. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to the phenomenon itself, much like many many other natural phenomenon which are not completely predictable. > > To the contrary. > > 1000 applications is not the same thing as “100s or 1000s of these contests”. (Which is besides for the fact that these tests are not all of the same phenomenon.) Over 1000 is in fact 100s \*or \*1000s. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/36 "2011-03-02T19:50:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to the phenomenon itself, much like many many other natural phenomenon which are not completely predictable. Which natural phenomena would those be? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/37 "2011-03-02T19:54:03Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Which natural phenomena would those be? Pick one. I gave you an example, with x-rays. Push a little closer to the edge with lie detector tests. There are zillions of phenomenon which have some actual correlation but far less than 100%. Do you disagree with this? ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/38 "2011-03-02T19:59:48Z")
Please answer hotflungwok’s questions. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/39 "2011-03-02T20:01:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > …do the test results prove that the tested phenomena don’t exist?..Randi does not owe the guy the money, but he also has not proved that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. It’d be terrific if the number of posters having this misconception could be diminished. Woo is not “disproven” on the basis of a single test, or even a series of them. Believers can always hold out the hope that someday, some way, Science will vindicate them. On the other hand, people with critical thinking skills will look at fantastical claims that have never been proven and/or debunked under controlled conditions and conclude that they are nonsense not worth further study and debate. There’s a difference between that and saying “it’s conclusively disproven”. If paranormalists want respect (and many indisputably do, or they wouldn’t have such fascination with getting vindication by something with the trappings of science), they need to meet the same criteria as those who propose far more realistic theories - _and_ do it reproducibly. It’s not a matter of “prove me wrong”, it’s “prove yourself right”. From what I’ve seen, Randi’s challenge rules are fair, unlike those of woo-ists ([example](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=322)). ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/40 "2011-03-02T20:03:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something to the phenomenon itself, much like many many other natural phenomenon which are not completely predictable. Who has disagreed? The Randi tests aren’t attempting to prove or disprove any phenomenon for all time and space. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164.md?page=3)