You NEVER have. You always dodge the question. You don’t have an answer.
Wrong.
The argument that ‘they signed a form’ is not a scientifically valid proof that the test is reasonable, and you won’t find any skilled tester using it.
The type of tester that uses arguments like that are not skilled, and they blunder all the time. Frequently the ‘psychics’ they test win, through the testers’ stupidity, and then the testers twist the results to make it look like they failed.
Not in itself.
Sorry about the double post
The argument that ‘they signed a form’ is not a scientifically valid proof that the test is reasonable in itself, and no one is making that argument here, as such. However, that “they signed a form” is a good indication that the testee thinks they can perform under the relevant conditions, and that the tester isn’t being unreasonable in imposing controls that create those conditions.
And when it turns out that the testee can’t perform under those conditions that doesn’t meant they aren’t psychic, but it does seem, particularly in the more blatant cases like that of “Pat” in the test under discussion, that the testee is more than a little clueless about their own alleged powers.
The point is, you are under the impression that it is a convincing argument. You seem to think there is no possible answer to it. Trouble is, the argument never convinces anyone. It always fails. And it’s clear that you don’t believe it either.
You know the difference between “anyone” and “you”, right? 
Thanks for letting me know. If there’s anything else I need to know about myself, I’ll be sure to ask you.
Do you not find it strange that problems with the protocol on the testers side tend to lead towards a tightening of the rules and the elimination of potential gaps, whereas problems expressed from the testees side tend to want the rules relaxed?
Science narrows down the protocol in order to ensure you are only seeing the effect you are interested in. Psychics do not drive the experiments in that direction very often and when they do…they fail. Nothing to see here.
The signed agreement is a fairly insignificant part of the protocol in all honesty but it is a convention. The most damming part of this is where the experiment gets the psychic to perform under the agreed conditions but with all the sensory and information leakage they like and then, when they (obviously) are successful, they get them to agree that their powers and the testing conditions are all fine.
Sure enough, when proper blinding is then introduced “poof” they can’t do it.
And to Enkel, regarding the quarks? That’s such a bad analogy as to be laughable.
Matter exists. It was thought that such matter had building blocks, no existing theory adequately explained the construction of matter, gaps in our knowledge of fundamental particles were noted and quarks (or their mathematical equivalent) were predicted. They were suggested as an hypothesis and subsequent experimentation set up to confirm or deny their existence.
Telepathy? it doesn’t even pass the sniff test. There is no evidence that it even exists as a phenomenon. There is no “gap” that isn’t adequately filled by co-incidence, the fallibility of human memory and confirmation bias.
The most basic good methodological practice kills the effect and people can purposefully set out to replicate the practice of telepathy through well understood methods of magic, showmanship and slight of hand. Relying on the aforementioned fallibility of humans to do the rest.
No evidence…I don’t say it doesn’t exist, that is a statement too far. I do say that it has never been shown to exist.
Feel free to put forward evidence to the contrary but remember that anecdotes simply won’t do.
So how would you design similar tests to make sure they were convincing? I can’t see what else one can do but ask the testees what they think they can do and get them to agree that what the testers are proposing, after reviewing the testees claims and designing a test, is a valid test of their abilities.
It ain’t goin’ to happen. **Peter **has any number of reasons why any test designed by anyone else is wrong, but if you ask him to design one he would rather give excuses for pagesthan attempt to do so.
James Randi still has his million dollars.. A million dollars. Seriously, if anyone could display their “psychic ability” for a million dollar payout, why wouldn’t they?
They wouldn’t lower themselves to perform like a circus animal for money, their gifts are way more important than that.
That is the most used excuse as far as I know, and my answer to that is do the test and give the money to charity.
Thanks this sheds light on it quite a lot.
Princhester, I’ll just answer your points in reverse order if I may.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting you. This is what I think, but you can tell me if I’m wrong.
Remember that CSICOP test I mentioned earlier, where they tested an astrologer, and the astrologer won.
Now, suppose you were debating astrology with a believer. Suppose he cited that CSICOP test as proof of astrology working.
If you try to explain that the test protocol was flawed, and the results invalid, he points out that both parties agreed to the protocol.
When you protest, they echo your words from earlier in the thread:
" it seems utterly commonplace for skeptics who lose the test that the test protocol was in some way at fault, and IME the “fault” is something that should have been obvious beforehand.
Can you answer your own question? Can you explain why the faults in the test weren’t obvious to the scientists?
So tell me, does the argument actually impress you? Do you really believe that it means anything at all?
I strongly suspect not. You can correct me if I’m wrong.
It (presumably) fails to convince you. It isn’t surprising that it fails to convince anyone else either.
Yes I do. And I stand behind my statement. The argument never impresses anyone.
Let me spell out for you just how much it fails.
On internet discussion groups, and newspaper letters pages, and similar forums, you quite often see people asking questions like “is dowsing real?”
In the discussion that follows, somebody usually cites a test run by a skeptic, e.g. Randi, and claims that the test MUST be fair because the testee agreed to the protocol.
In my experience, the OP rarely takes any notice of the Randifan. In most cases, his citing the test has no effect on the discussion at all.
Once in a while, the OP does respond, but with annoyance. He has read the report of the test, doesn’t think it fair, and is more sympathetic to the dowser or psychic being tested.
I have never seen a single one that was impressed by the test. Not ever. In my experience, it has a 100% fail rate.
Princhester, you think that it is a clever argument, but you don’t seem to understand how it always fails to impress other people.
But once in a while,
Simple. It’s called peer review, and it’s what proper tests use.
Basically, the test is considered valid if the protocol is reviewed by a load of other scientists, and THEY all agree that it’s valid.
In the first place, that bordering on a personal; attack. Please refrain.
In the second place, it’s a question I’ve answered time and time again.
In the third place, your link does not support your claim.
In the fourth place, it has never been a logical criticism.
Suppose you read a movie review. The reviewer talks about the movie’s bad acting, annoying soundtrack, lacklustre direction, wobbly sets, nonsensical plot, and stilted dialogue. Would you consider it fair to demand that of the reviewer that he should make a better movie?
I am entitled to demolnstrate the faults in tests, I don’t need to design a better one.
At present the best we can hope for regarding phsychic phenomina is the accept it, reject it or be open minded about it. No test is even close to possible at this time. I can come up with far more questions than answers.
Do we have senders and receivers?, Do these signals have a channel unique to an individual? Does our mind have to be in a very specific state to send or receive a message? How far can these signals travel? What are these signals? Is their a limited number of channels meaning several individuals will be operating on the same wave length at any given time? Are signals emotion based or word based? Does this appear to be more super natural than physical? How would you establish a study group? Who would interpet the results? What kind of odds would indicate a positive response as opposed to negative response?
If I were going to do a test like this I would group people who claimed no phsychic power but felt they had more than their share of coincidences with those who did claim to have some power. It would likely take many years to come up with anything really conclusive beyond just changing a few opinions one way or the other.I wouldn’t, but if the reviewer said the same thing about every movie he reviewed and was unable/unwilling to provide an example of a movie that was good, I’d begin to think he ought to be doing something else with his time.
That’s fine, but someone who claims to be psychic should be able to narrow down the questions to just a few and test those. If these people really do have psychic powers, you’d think that they’d understand a little bit about them.
I tend to have zero faith in anyone who claims psychic powers. Casual experiences of my own and those relayed to me by others leave me with some open mindedness on the issue.
I’m open minded too. But what I really believe is that some people are just really good at reading other people. Or they let their subconsciouses do a lot of the work. (I think that’s a pretty underestimated ability.) Or they have a lot of confirmation bias around some pretty odd coincidences. Or all three.
Psychic ability is not needed for any of those.
Larry Niven’s “Ringworld” touches on this kind of thing. Humans are being secretly bred by aliens for psychic “luck”, but for some weird reason the aliens just can’t get in touch with some of the test subjects…