# Randi/ where are the "hits"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2008, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845 "2008-11-08T21:23:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![nivlac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3bc359/32.png) [@nivlac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nivlac)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/41 "2008-11-10T21:00:04Z")
> [@glee](#): > > I don’t know what you mean by ‘adjusting the score’, since the dowser (or other paranormal practitioner) agrees a specific claim about his abilities before the test starts. > If he fails to achieve this, it’s a failure. > For example, if someone claims he can predict the result of coin tosses 98% of the time, it doesn’t matter if he scores 52%. > > [Here is an example of randi testing a dowser as part of the preliminaries for the million dollars.](http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html) Thanks for the link. Very informative about the protocol used by Randi in the dowsing tests. I read nothing to suggest than anyone has ever passed the threshold of achieving a result that was statistically significantly better than random chance. So it could be that the OP’s question is moot. There hasn’t been any “hits”. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/59ef9b/32.png) [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/42 "2008-11-10T21:32:56Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Please do stick to the subject. What does the following have to do with the subject? > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > No, the rules of mathematics determine what constitutes a successful test. Dowsers don’t get to change that. Success is determined by statistical analysis of the results. If statisticians determine that 22% is a positive result, it doesn’t matter what the dowsers say. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/43 "2008-11-10T22:10:28Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > For a start, the fact that Randi broke the agreement, which he had previously agreed was fair. He added on the scores of two totally separate and unrelated tests. There was no provision for doing so in the agreed upon rules. Well, in your links, the % blank is left open, and there is no discussion of the protocol. A [very similar test](http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm) was done and there is discussion of Non-Water dowsing. > [@nivlac](#): > > .. So it could be that the OP’s question is moot. There [haven’t] been any “hits”. To clarify again, that’s impossible. I am not defining a “hit” as someone passing the test. I am not defining a “hit” as someone passing the test. I am not defining a “hit” as someone passing the test. Someone, somewhere, somehow should eventually have to be re-tested. I’m not asking to test something paranormal here. Picking correctly given a one-in-ten chance does not require paranormal talents. The only importance of hitting on the first try really comes from the Randi with the dowser video I linked to in this thread. When the dowser misses on his first attempt, he gets another attempt. That changes the math, because one option is eliminated. (Interesting aside, if you watch the video, the dowser is unsure if it’s, for example, 4 or 10. He picks 10. Then he tries 4 again, giving himself, to the unskeptical eye, two tries for one.) So, hitting on the first try is only relevant to that. But let’s say that again. There is nothing special about hitting on the first try. There should be no surprise when it happens. I’m only surprised that it doesn’t seem to happen. Where are “those” hits? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/44 "2008-11-11T00:14:57Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > However, Randi never tells you about the ones that score 20% or 30%. > [@Randi](#): > > Looking at the tests on specific substances, the water tests showed 50 tests total with 11 correct or 22%. That’s from your own cite. Damn, that Randi, he’s a tricky man hiding the figure in plain sight like that. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/45 "2008-11-11T00:48:10Z")
**SiXSwordS,** there is a [free forum at randi.org](http://forums.randi.org/) that might be a good place for you to post your question. It is well moderated, but perhaps more on topic RE the MDC and protocol for such tests. They may know a bit more about the details you seek about past tests. Unfortunately, Peter Morris posts there, too, AFAIK under the same name. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/46 "2008-11-11T01:02:47Z")
Nice personal attack there, Musicat. Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to insult me? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/47 "2008-11-11T01:03:39Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > \*\* > > Unfortunately, Peter Morris posts there, too, AFAIK under the same name. :rolleyes: **Musicat**. Not a warning. But, sheesh! Can you keep these kinds of posts out of General Questions? **samclem** General Questions Moderator. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/48 "2008-11-11T02:02:21Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > There should be no surprise when it happens. I’m only surprised that it doesn’t seem to happen. Where are “those” hits? Cutting room floor, I suspect. No edited documentary is going to have time to show everything. Let’s say they test ten guys, and nine don’t hit first time and one does. It would be regarded as dull to show all ten attempts. So they will just show two or three. If they showed two misses and the one guy that hit, then the impression created would be of quite a reasonable rate of success, which would be inaccurate. So they probably just show the failures which creates approximately the right impression, but not the absolutely accurate impression. One of the problems with science as popular entertainment is that most science is button counting and bottle washing (as I think Heinlein said) and it’s dull, dull, dull. So inevitably they show the fun bits and you’ve got to hope that they show something that still gives an acceptably accurate impression. It’s frustrating as a purist, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/49 "2008-11-11T14:03:03Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > That’s from your own cite. Damn, that Randi, he’s a tricky man hiding the figure in plain sight like that. Yes, Princhester, Randi is indeed a tricky man. The fact is that he did indeed hide the figure, just as you say. He hid it so well that most of his supporters fail to spot it. Even when it is pointed out to them, they still go back to the belief that the score was 13%. Randi is good at word games like that. It’s very sad that he is able to fool you every time. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/50 "2008-11-11T15:10:46Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Yes, Princhester, Randi is indeed a tricky man. The fact is that he did indeed hide the figure, just as you say. He hid it so well that most of his supporters fail to spot it. Even when it is pointed out to them, they still go back to the belief that the score was 13%. Randi is good at word games like that. It’s very sad that he is able to fool you every time. [Moderating] This, again, is a matter of opinion, and editorializing. I am going to insist that you stick absolutely, strictly, to facts in this matter. You are to refrain from critcism of Randi personally in this thread. You may criticize his methods if you want, but not make implications about his motivations. If you depart from this again, you will receive a warning for failure to comply with instructions. In fairness, I am also instructing other posters to refrain from snark, insults, and other personal aspersions about **Peter.** You may address the factual content of his posts, but do not make your remarks personal. Nearly every thread mentioning Randi develops into a trainwreck due to personal disputes between **Peter** and other posters. I’m going to see if we can avoid that happening with this one. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/51 "2008-11-11T16:29:06Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > **SiXSwordS,** there is a [free forum at randi.org](http://forums.randi.org/) that might be a good place for you to post your question. .. Thanks for another resource. > [@Princhester](#): > > Cutting room floor, I suspect. No edited documentary is going to have time to show everything. .. So they probably just show the failures which creates approximately the right impression, but not the absolutely accurate impression. I tend to agree, if only because the answer seems to keep coming back to this. Maybe someone at the [randi.org](http://randi.org) site will have some access to the out takes. ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/52 "2008-11-11T17:21:33Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The water dowsers and Randi had agreed the rules of the test in advance. Each had signed a contract agreeing that the rules are fair. The agreement that Randi made does not contain any mention of gold or brass dowsing. The tests were separate, having nothing to do with each other. They were different people, making a different claim, tested under a different protocol, and with a different prize on offer. \*\*By combining the three results he broke the agreement that he had written himself, which he had previously agreed was fair. \*\* > [http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm](http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm) Bolding mine. He did no such thing. Each dowser was rated pass/fail on the merit of his own test. > [@](#): > > The reward money was not paid out, since no claimant came even close to achieving\*\* his claimed success rate\*\*—though most were sure they had! Bolding mine. Each dowser failed to meet his own expected success rate. Randi only adds them together as a summary of the test as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/53 "2008-11-11T17:37:30Z")
**SiXSwordS,** why is it important that you find some tests where the first try (of a series) was an apparent success? No one is saying they don’t exist. Let’s say that someone is, indeed, not providing all recorded data and covering up some apparent successes. Other than dishonesty, what does that prove? We have enough data to know Pretty Darn Well that tests of this sort routinely return results indistinguishable from chance. It seems like all you could prove in your quest is that a representive cross-sampling of test results isn’t readily available to the public, and that may be the case. Anything else we should be looking for? ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845/54 "2008-11-11T20:07:48Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > **SiXSwordS,** why is it important that you .. Difficult to answer, in part due to time constraints. > [@](#): > > No one is saying they don’t exist. It seems to me that a lot of people are saying a lot of things — including that there have been no hits at all — and I would like to have a better understanding of my own rather than one that is pre-digested. > [@](#): > > Let’s say that someone is, indeed, not providing all recorded data and covering up some apparent successes. Other than dishonesty, what does that prove? I don’t agree that it proves dishonesty… > [@](#): > > We have enough data to know Pretty Darn Well that tests of this sort routinely return results indistinguishable from chance. One of the things I am trying to get a better grasp of (BTW: my copy of how to lie with statistics is waiting for me as we speak) is what _exactly_ it means that something is, as you put it, indistinguishable from chance. > [@](#): > > It seems like all you could prove in your quest is that a representive cross-sampling of test results isn’t readily available to the public, and that may be the case. .. I’m not sure I proved anything either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-where-are-the-hits/471845.md?page=2)