Since then SnakeSpirit has been banned, and I’ve decided not to argue for the “paranormal” any more. I stick to philosophy, math, and science, as I have in this thread.
When arguing about particular studies, it becomes a war of cites. You give cite saying the study is crap, I give one saying the study was great. And so on. Unless we are master statisticians, we really can’t argue the ins and outs of these things. Discussion is therefore fruitless.
No argument here. 
Agree to a cheatproof, luckproof (if we’re taking p=10[sup]-6[/sup] to be “luckproof”) test. You are suggesting that Randi only agrees to p=10[sup]-10[/sup]tests? I’d be surprised if that was true. I would not be surprised if that was his initial offer in absence of any kind of claim at all beyond “I can tell where water is/I see dead people etc.”. If you really could, why wouldn’t you get 10 out of 10 right? If some reason was given, the negotiation could proceed from that point on with Randi offering successively more time-consuming, bigger p values for ‘success’ until his ‘final offer’ of p=10[sup]-6[/sup] was put forward. This is an eminently reasonable way forward, agreed?
Sorry to appear hearing impaired, but which problems, again? The “problems” I’ve seen so far are merely those of any statistical testing in a field where cheats and money-grabbers abound.
I think you misunderstand post #4. Given 10 options (10 containers of soil one of which is wet underneath for a dowser, 10 very different descriptions of the person in front of them for a psychic, 10 very different positions of an object for remote viewers), the applicant either chooses the correct one or not: there is no ‘judgement’. This is the equivalent of a single roll of the 10-sided dice. 10 ‘rolls’ could easily be made within an hour, if the dowsers/psychics/viewers I see on TV are anything to go by: heck, I’ve seen them doing stuff on the other end of a phone line!
Well, you or Snake did provide studies and arguments, and I think I put them all to rest with the exception of the most recent Ganzfeld claim (which, however, I argued was hardly conclusive evidence).
It is, to an extent, a war of cites. That’s academia for you. it is also an exercise in the scientific and sceptical methods. We certainly covered the scientific method and the sceptical method very thoroughly in past discussions, but I don’t think you are presenting either in a fair manner here. I’d like to see harder evidence that Randi and the JREF/Challenge are grossly and systematically abusing the sceptical method in the manner suggested.
Well, you have facts (your statements on statistical analysis are largely correct) but I don’t see you wielding a lot of truth (i.e. philosophical insight). Further, though there are skeptics here who label and dismiss, you are getting more than a fair share worth of reasoned debate from intelligent posters. Your condescension is actually hurting your arguments because to argue from a superior position requires:
[ul][li]Actually acheiving a superior position, which you haven’t; or[/li][li]Being very good at bluffing, which you aren’t.[/ul][/li]
I don’t see what “truth” you have to shove down anyone’s throat, nor that your command of mathematics and empirical science is superior to any of several skeptical posters in this thread, myself included. I’m making no assumptions that you are ignorant of these fields; merely that your demonstrated knowledge is not particularly impressive or unique.
That aside, may I suggest a distinction be made between two possible applications of paranormal abilities, if they exist. No doubt much of this will seem obvious, but that hardly seems a disqualification for posting in this thread:
[list=#][li]Deterministic: Creating an undeniable and seemingly spontaneous effect. Examples would be telekinesis (stationary objects move) or pyrokinesis (fires abruptly start). No number of random non-psychic attempts is going to create the effect. [/li][li]Modified Probability: Influencing or predicting a random event. Influence examples would be affecting the roll of dice, the flipping of a coin, or the flickering of a candle flame, in a desired manner. Prediction examples would include dowsing, telepathy and precognition, where the claimed psychic can significantly outperform a non-psychic making random guesses. It should be easy to see that these two conditions have a great deal of overlap, especially if a claim (for example) is the ability to call a number and then roll it on dice. Is it telekinesis (making the dice conform to the call) or precognition (knowing which number will appear and calling it in advance)?[/list][/li]
Naturally enough, these are quite different and require different approaches. The test equipment for the former can be made extremely “gentle”, i.e. moving specks of paper requires a truly tiny amount of force, but without force of some kind, the specks aren’t moving at all. If test apparatus is properly designed, the chance of a random force (gusts of wind, static electricity) is effectively eliminated. I suspect this is the kind of challenge Randi would like to see met, since it has no subjective element and is (presumably) repeatable. With a modified probability challenge, it will always be possible that random chance favours a non-psychic challenger (false positive) or that random chance is working against a psychic challenger (false negative) and if the claimed ability is itself subject to randomness the number of necessary trials becomes a nuisance and even then, proves nothing. I should point out that statistics does not and has never proven a (null) hypothesis. At best, it suggests that a given hypothesis should not be rejected based on the evidence at hand. Getting heads on twenty consecutive coin flips (or fifty, or even a hundred) is impressive. It does not prove the existence of telekinesis. In fact, if telekinesis is being used as a hypothesis, there are testing methods other than coin-flips which should demonstrate it conclusively, including moving around specks of paper in a sealed glass jar from which all air has been removed. I suspect this rather obvious conclusion is fully understood by the people running the JREF challenge and I can understand why they may lose patience with messy Modified Probability claims when a good Determinstic demo is the gold standard and no doubt the cooler thing to witness.
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it is just not very relevant. Yes, Randi probably wouldn’t test claims of very slight ability because to do so you’d have to do very long series’ to reach a high level of statistical confidence.
But Randi is not doing research, he’d testing what people claim.
What most if not close to all people with paranormal powers say is that they have some strong power that really works, much of the time. The weakest claim I have ever seen was Beth Clarkson, and even she claimed that she could influence 1 in 3, which is actually pretty strong (albeit that Kramer the dunderhead utterly failed to grasp this).
Speakers to the dead (Edward, Brown et al) do not, as a general rule, say “I can relate things that the dead tell me. What they tell me is usually wrong, but they are wrong just slightly statistically better than blind chance.” No, they say “I can speak to the dead and they tell me the truth”. And when they fail they do not say “well, sure, most of the time what the dead tell me is wrong, but they’re wrong slightly less than I would be if I just guessed”. No, they give some piss poor excuse about what they’ve said being from a person’s future or whatever.
Dowsers do not say “I can find water just a smidgen more effectively than random guessing.” No, they say: “I can find water, and I can feel it through my rod/wire/whatever when I am above water.”
Astrologers similarly. When was the last time you heard someone who believes in astrology say that astrologers are usually wrong, but they’re wrong a bit less often than some wise old woman who knows a bit about life?
Basically, Aeschines, you’re a smart guy but you’ve focussed in on a loophole in the skeptic fortress the size of the eye of a needle and you’re trying to pull a camel through.
You need to preface your long learned posts on statistics with “What I am about to point out is essentially nitpickery which has little if any application to the real world, but…”
Or to put it rather more efficiently, (thanks Bryan) your nitpickery is largely irrelevant because most paranormal claims are deterministic or involve very very highly modified probability.
And Aeschines, when you dismiss something on the basis that “Peter has dealt with this”, you need really to say “Peter has made a particular assertion about this then left the thread on a particularly poor excuse when his assertion was questioned.”
Which is somewhat less of an effective dismissal, but closer to the truth.
Anytime, but your contribution prompts me to make a small addition to my earlier statement. Many psychic claims start as Deterministic, but when on-demand demonstrations are not forthcoming, they morph into Modified Probability using statements like “It doesn’t work all the time,” “I can’t concentrate with a skeptic in the room”, “The spirits are uncooperative today” or something similar to explain away negative results.
Good posts by Bryan and Princhester.
I feel we’ve discussed this one thoroughly, gentlemen. I’ll be around to answer any more specific questions, but I’ll thank you now for a good debate.
A quick addition to a previous note. Someone, I don’t see it in a brief scan of the thread, mentioned that nobody claimed to be able to fly with psychic powers, and such a gross test could be quickly checked. In fact, there is an entire sect who claims to be able to fly through mind power along. Transcedental Meditation and their ‘yogic flying’ made quite a few inches of newspaper ink with their claims. They refused to be tested, as I recall.
What if that is the true nature of the paranormal and it exists? What if the paranormal doesn’t conform to his standards and the way he believes it should perform? It would seem that his test is biased to really detect the paranormal then, he isn’t really testing for truth at all. He just wants the results that support his claim.
Perhaps he should not claim that his test disproves the paranormal, which he holds up and touts as evidence that there is no such thing.
Just for the sake of comparison, lets pretend we were testing a “normal” ability, like sight.
For example:
I claim that my eyes work, and that I can see what number was rolled on a die.
The test:
Someone rolls a die, I will look at it but not touch it and tell you what number appears on the top of the die.
To be sure, we will repeat 100 times in a row, and I am allowed 5 mistakes (due to nervousness).
I don’t think anyone would consider this an unfair test of sight, so how could a similar test for other abilities be a problem???
I don’t understand.
FYI: I was typing while devil was submitting. That might be a valid point.
Well the JREF is welcome to structure their challenge any way that they want to. And remember they are putting up $1 million to someone who can show clearly and unambiguously that they can do something amazing and it doesn’t involve random chance or trickery. No, it’s not the end-all of tests of paranormal abilities but I think it’s a completely reasonable way to test someone who is making an incredible claim such as “I can levitate by sitting in a lotus position and concentrating”.
If genuine paranormal abilities do exist but they are very minor and not extremely reliable then I think the first “challenge” is to design a test that can show evidence of “something” actually going on after filtering out statistical noise. If my telekinesis only affects one coin toss out of a thousand you will need to toss an awful lot of coins before you’ve gathered enough data to say that any patterns aren’t the result of random chance.
Well, I’ll asume “he” is Randi, though your statement is a little hard to parse. I think it’s quite debatable that the JREF tests are “biased” in any particular way, since the premise is that the JREF and the person claiming paranormal abilities have to agree on conditions of sucess and failure. The impression I have of Randi is that he has two goals:
[list=#][li]To witness a genuinely paranormal event, and[/li][li]To expose charlatans who are defrauding the public.[/li][/quote]
These are not contradictory.
Is there any such claim on record? If there is, the claim is false, because no test can disprove the paranormal. Has he (Randi?) ever done the evidence-touting you describe? I can picture him doing so in a moment of impatience or anger. This wouldn’t invalidate his work, though.
In any case, I find it difficult to believe that if paranormal abilities exist, they are so unreliable and elusive that no verification is (yet) possible.
The impression I really have of Randi is that he has two goals:
[list=#][li]To witness a genuinely paranormal event, and[/li][li]To expose charlatans who are defrauding the public.[/list][/li]
These are (still) not contradictory.
There are so many inaccurate assumptions in this post that it’s really not worth me going into them all. You need to do some basic reading up.
Sadly, that is not the case. What he is doing is re-writing what they claim, and then demanding they prove what HE says, rather than prove what they say.
That’s what Randi claims they say. However, even a brief review of the paramnormal literature proves that to not be the case.
Seriously, you haven’t seen many claims if that is the “weakest” one. The vast majority of claims are a few percentage points above chance level. See for example the Rhine experiments, where his star performer achieved a 32% hit rate, against an expected 20% chance level.
Seriously, Princhester, most self-professed psychics claim a hit rate in that sort of region.
Now, as we have seen, Randi will usually not test that type of claim. He will only test people that claim 100% or close. I submit to you that some people have been bullied by Randi into claiming a 100% rate. Outside of Randi’s tests their claims are much more modest, usually.
Actually, what they say is "I hear a name beginning with D … or maybe B " Not exactly a claim of 100% success rate, is it?
Look at the Mars Effect. The claim was that the position of Mars at the time of birth has a slight influence on someone’s choice of career. A matter of a few percentage points, only observable when looking at a large population. That is 22% of athletes were born with Mars in a particular position, compared to 17% of people generally.
What makes you think that many paranormalists claim 100% rates? Other than Randi’s say so. As a lawyer, you should know better than to rely on hearsay.
Just for the record, your method of “questioning” my assertion was to throw a load of very childish insults at me, as you have done many times before. I resused to answer you on that. That does not mean that I have left the thread. If you behave in an adult manner, I’ll continue to debate you. If you revert to mudslinging, don’t expect to get a reply.
Sadly, what you say is not the case, either. Randi (or Kramer, if you prefer) is requiring a clear statement of the psychic’s claimed abilities. As a result, some degree of negotiation is required. The JREF is unlikely to accept a vague claim, nor would I expect them to for a million bucks.
The vast majority of positive claims are a few percentage points above chance level. Had the Rhine experiments been negative, we would not be reading about them becuase nobody would have bothered documenting them.
Submit all you like, but considering the stakes, it’s hardly surprising that the JREF sets a high standard.
And ACTUALLY actually, the John Edwards of the world would be happy to consider that a “hit” if a member of the audience responds, and forget about it completely if no-one does.
The existence of anomalous phenomena proves nothing but the existence of anomalous phenomena. Is there some particular reason Mars correlates with atheleticism? Does Jupiter? How about other planets? In my last game of bridge, what were the odds of my drawing those particular 13 cards? Does such an unlikely event prove the existence of… something?
Does Randi make such a claim? I can understand if he’s only willing to shell out a million bucks for an impressive performance and not something that may the result of mere chance. A nice Deterministic display (as opposed to a mere Modified Probability - see eralier definitions) would do it.
Well, gee, Pete… sometimes you just cry out for it when you say things like “The double standards of Randi supporters never ceases to amaze me”.
Wrong. JREF is adept at ignoring what people say.
Gotta love the way you ignore the point, and change the subject. I’ll make this simple for you.
**Princhester **contends that B.C’s claim of a 33% success rate is low, and that most psychics claim a higher rate than that. I contend that his statement is wrong, and in fact most psychics claim a hit rate not much above chance levels. I have given several examples of this.
I am not interested at this present time of debating the truth of their claims. That’s a thread for another day. In this particular thread, I’m only concerned with the flaws in Randi’s testing. At this precise point, I’m considering the fact that Randi demands a higher standard than most of them actually claim. Just one of many reasons why the challenge is, at best, worthless.
If you wish to respond, please stick to the point.
Well, you consider “Randi-fan” to be a term of abuse. Some people will take offense at anything. I doubt there’s anything I could say - short of “I love Randi” - that you WOULDN’T object to.
As I understand it, most psychics make extraordinary claims, and only back down from those claims when subjected to rigourous examination. As for results that are slightly better than chance, there are three major flaws with assuming they stand as evidence of psychic ability:
[list=#][li]Within a study, it’s easy to intentionally or unintentionally discard negative results, giving an overall positive slant. Further, entire sessions which show negative results can be written off if vague claims of psychic interference and whatnot are accepted[/li][li]It is fairly easy for a psychic to spot, consciously or unconsciously, “tells” which give a slight edge. One of the cards in the five-symbol deck could be slightly worn, for example. Perhaps the person whose mind the psychic is trying to read is giving subtle clues through body language. Even a slight bias can lead to “a hit rate not much above chance levels”[/li][li]Just by natural chance, we would expect a person to perform above-average at least some of the time[/list][/li]
Frankly, unless someone can demonstrate an ability which is significantly and consistantly above chance levels, ruling out point 3, and a rigourous testing proecude can be agreed to by both parties to eliminate points 1 and 2, I wouldn’t expect the JREF to show much interest. Incidentally, I’ve no doubt the JREF has received many claims and it wouldn’t surprise if a streak of cynicism had entered the equation.
Is it? Wouldn’t paranormal abilities, if they exist, be able to do something impressive? Shouldn’t the people claiming to be able to telekinetically affect the roll of a die be able to move something in inconsequently as a grain of sand? Shouldn’t those claiming to be ale to bend a metal spoon be able to do the same with a crowbar made of the same material? Why is it worthless to try to eliminate mundane explanations in a search for something genuinely paranormal? Why is it worthless if the possible cynicism I cited earlier biases the testing results toward more rigour?
Done, though if your point is that the JREF challenge is worthless, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I find your reasoning unconvincing.
The amusing thing is that I’m not even a Randi fan. I saw his special on Nova a few years back, and I’ve been to the JREF website a few times, though never registered to post there. In fact, the only time I ever write about Randi is in threads like this one, and it’s not even to defend Randi but the scientific method itself. What I perceive is that you find your position under attack (and it is such an easily-attackable position), two of your primary weapons are:
[ul][li]No-one but a Randi fan would defend Randi, and[/li][li]Randi fans are little more than mindless cult members[/ul][/li]
Now, a sneer can be an effective rhetorical tool, but when it’s overused it actually gets in the way. It suggests you have nothing else to say.