Beth Clarkson, Complex Protocol

[Ashles]

Beth Clarkson's experimental protocol

That seems incredibly over-elaborate and has a couple of real no-nos.

The sequence of trials (controls and tests) need to be unknown to the observer and anyone who makes measurements. It should also be determined in advance. I recommend that the subject determine the sequence and give the sequence to the observer in a sealed envelope or a password protected computer file prior to each experiment. The envelope or file would not be opened until after the experiment is complete and all measurement are complete and have been accepted.

So Beth decides the order of controls and tests? Why should she be deciding the order of anything here?

Absolute value of measurements vs. -90° to 270°. There are 360° in a circle. The target is set at 0°. The measurements can occur anywhere on the circumference of the circle. It isn’t appropriate to use 0 to 360 as the measurements, because measurements that occur close to the target, but on opposite sides would then be recorded as being very far apart rather than close together.

Bizarre over complexity - how is anyone supposed to measure exact degrees when we are talking about a small wax ring being melted?
And why -90 to 270 degrees?
Maybe the next point adresses this:

The target is oriented to the subject’s preference.

Erm, how about, no way whatsoever.
Why don't we just allow the subject to move the candle to the target area with her hand?

This whole claim is really looking like an absolute non-starter.

I predict the actual testing will not happen as the required protocol will be too strict for Beth (or her partners).
And by too strict I mean, of course, it won't allow cheating.

This is the point at which I imagine many paranormal claims get good results - because they allow the protocol to be dictated by the claimant and the experiment turns out to be far more elaborate and confusing than it needs to be.

 

[Ashles]

I'm not claiming a "power" sufficient to convince anyone, even me, in a single trial. I thought you guys wanted scientific evidence! Scientific evidence requires repeated trials, careful measurements and statistical analysis to establish whether a seemingly subtle difference between groups is real or just random chance. So what's the objection to using those in an experiment? - Beth

This test is never going to happen.



And KRAMER, could you ask her how she discovered this skill in the first place?

Can anyone think of any possible way anyone could 'discover' they had a skill as minute and untestable as this?

If it will require many trials and statistical analysis to discover whether there is any effect there at all WHY IS SHE IN ANY WAY CONVINCED THAT HER ABILITY EXISTS?

If it is too small to be noticed in a single trial then obviously she must have randomly decided she had this ability and then spent ages staring at flames trying to convince herself that she really had it.

I am convinced this is diplacement activity to distract her from the pressing problems in her life.

 

[Prolix]

What's preventing Prof. Clarkson from performing her own test and making it as thorough and elaborate as she feels necessary to be convincing, and then publish it to the public, including posting it in this forum, thereby challenging JREF to replicate it?

I hereby pledge $10,000 to the Clarkson challenge, wherein Clarkson awards JREF if JREF replicates her own completed test.

 

[apoger]

I pointed out in earlier discussion that the complex nature of this procedure was an issue.

I honestly have no idea how the JREF can reasonably deal with this.

Instead I will approach from another angle.
The claimant seems willing to look at the possiblity that she is in error. This is a good start. I propose a simple protocol that may help the claimant come to determine the validity of her "power" without all the complexity of the candle & wax fanfare.

The claim is that she can move things with her mind. It would seem that pushing a flame was chosen due to the limited force needed to make it move. I propose using a less complex target.

For this test the claimant will need a piece of lined paper, and some scissors.

Take the scissors and cut some tiny bits off the corner of the paper. Make certain that they are very tiny. So small that you might call them specks. So small that you have trouble handling them because static makes them stick to things.

Take three tiny specks and place them in a row, on a line, on the paper.

Puff a small breath near the specks.
See how they blow away as if slammed by a mighty force!
It takes almost no force at all to move things so small.

Put the three tiny specks back in a row, on a line, on the paper.

Now here is the test: Try to push the middle speck forward until it is off the line. The two outer specks are controls. If they move with the inner speck, it's probably a minute air current at work.

Success would be the ability to push ONLY the center speck off-line. It takes only the tiniest shard of force. Unlike a candle flame, the speck won't flicker or move back. Thus there will be less confusion about the result.

While not as stringent nor as definitive as a proper test, this is a test that can be done simply and inexpensively. Perhaps by using a simple test like this, the claimant can better determine if more complex procedures are called for.

 

[rppa]

I sympathize with Beth Clarkson, and on reading that thread so does Kramer, because she really does seem like she's trying to be rigorous.

She thinks she has a weak power. She thinks she can achieve statistically significant results. She's familiar with the language and mathematics of hypothesis testing.

The JREF standard ordinarily seems to be that the observed results should have less than 0.001 chance of occurring if random. That is, not only are they significant, but they're significant at the 0.999 level. She seems to be saying she can achieve that, given enough trials, but due to the amount of noise the number of trials needs to be large indeed.

As to the -90 to 270 thing. It sounds like she's trying to figure out how best to deal with the old problem of angle averaging. What's the average of -89 and +269 degrees? Do a naive average (add the numbers and divide by 2) and you get (-89 + 269)/2 = 180/2 = 90. But draw these two points on a graph and you'll realize they're only 2 degrees apart and their average is -90.

This is a solvable problem. Meteorologists do it all the time when working out average wind direction.

I think the other question you raise, about the subject choosing the order, is more important. I"m not clear on what is being ordered, but the JREF gold standard is usually double-blindness. How can you do double-blind testing if the power is "I can make the candle flame move in direction X?" You have to know what X is.

 

[Ashles]

As to the -90 to 270 thing. It sounds like she's trying to figure out how best to deal with the old problem of angle averaging. What's the average of -89 and +269 degrees? Do a naive average (add the numbers and divide by 2) and you get (-89 + 269)/2 = 180/2 = 90. But draw these two points on a graph and you'll realize they're only 2 degrees apart and their average is -90.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
I understand that you don't want to have the measurements cross the 360 point as it buggers up the calculations.

But wouldn't -180 to +180 make more sense?

Combined with "The target is oriented to the subject’s preference" it just felt to me like she has a preferred part of the ring that she generally aims for, and the -90 to 270 seemed to reflect that.

If she has a preferred part of the wax ring then it looks even more likely that she is using air currents somehow.

 

[Moose]

For this test the claimant will need a piece of lined paper, and some scissors.

I can't resist: where does the rock come in?

 

[rppa]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
I understand that you don't want to have the measurements cross the 360 point as it buggers up the calculations.

But wouldn't -180 to +180 make more sense?

Combined with "The target is oriented to the subject’s preference" it just felt to me like she has a preferred part of the ring that she generally aims for, and the -90 to 270 seemed to reflect that.

If she has a preferred part of the wax ring then it looks even more likely that she is using air currents somehow.

That's not how I read it. It was just a longish way of trying to describe the best statistical averaging procedure, and she was worried about what to do if the measurements cover all 4 quarters whatever those quarters are. But she also said they usually only occur in 3 quarters and you can just use whatever choice makes all 3 quarters positive.

Almost certainly she's unconsciously using air currents. This is self-delusion by what seems to be a pretty smart and well-trained person. It's an aspect of woo-woo that always saddens me, because you want to let them down gently but there might not be any to do that.

On the other hand, according to Randi dowsers are usually pretty nice, sincere folks who are completely self-deluded, and they seem to weather the failure of rigorous tests with their self-esteem intact.

Maybe I shouldn't worry about Beth. If she's training as a scientist, she has to be prepared to see a dearly-beloved hypothesis break against the experimental evidence. It's how science is done.

 

[Yaotl]

What if she tries to keep a candle flame steady in the presence of air currents?

 

[alfaniner]

What if she tries to keep a candle flame steady in the presence of air currents?

Kind of like a drunk man walking during an earthquake...

 

[Kimpatsu]

It's all a nonsense to me. She can only perform on one out of every three tries? That's worse than chance. Hey, maybe she emanates negative psychic energy! Hey, I have a way to test her: Put her in a room with Uri Geller, and see if he can no longer bend spoons.
Errmmm...

 

[davefoc]

Kimpatsu and KRAMER seem to have the same view with regard to the one in three thing.

When MS. Clarkson's initial email and KRAMER's response about this I thought KRAMER had misunderstood what Ms. Clarkson was saying.

If somebody can telekinetically alter a flame even one in a thousand times that's still a paranormal event and worthy of the prize.

Clearly, if there is any genuine paranormal effect it is likely to be subtle since if it was obvious it would likely have been validated by now. So if KRAMER is going to reject the testing of every claimant just because the claimed effect is subtle he is making a decision to fail to test what are the most likely kinds of claims to be true.

The difficulty is in detecting a subtle effect. In this case the woman proposes that she can telekinetically alter a flame about one time in three that she tries. That seems like a highly testable proposition to me. Unfortunately based on the subsequent emails that I read (I didn't read them all) it seems like the difficulty is that the effect is so subtle that it is not clear when the effect is observed whether it was just a random flame variation or the result of telekinetic influence.

It seemed though that the woman had a protocol in mind to deal with this difficulty but that the protocol was so complicated that it exceeded JREF's patience and or resources to deal with. Too bad, but I suppose JREF's view is that there are so many claims for effects that are easily tested that fooling with ones like this isn't a useful use of their resources.

But if there was any such thing as a genuine paranormal effect it is more likely to be something like this than one where the claim is so strong that it is almost certain that if it was real somebody would have been able to demonstrate it by now.

 

[roger]

I agree, dave. Once again Kramer has made the mistake of confusing the chance of doing something with success rate. If I can predict the throw of a dice 1 in 3 times, that's paranormal (or I'm cheating). Moving a candle flame 1 in 3 times, if true, is an earth shattering change in how we understand the world works. She'd get the Nobel for it, easy peasy. It's a stunning achievement.

I also have sympathy for her complex protocol. Since when do scientists perform an experiment that alters the direction of physics in an afternoon? Sometimes - sure. If I say I can dowse with 85% success rate, then I better be able to deliver over a few trials, period. If my claim is that gravity exists, well, I drop my beer and tada, proved. On the other hand, if my claim is neutrinos exists, I set up a multi-million dollar detector and run it for years, hoping to detect that 1 in a trillion interaction with ordinary matter (or whatever the real odds are).

Hey, I don't blame JREF a second for not wanting to spend weeks on a single test, but the 'show me or shut up' (paraphrased) attitude really isn't a valid retort to someone claiming a subtle effect.

Of course, her experiment is flawed. She states she has to "close the room off or unexpected breezes can ruin the experiment". BAM. It's all over. No cookie for you. If you aren't controlling for an effect, you have proved nothing. Not to mention all the other possible confounding variables I and others have mentioned in the past. But Randi's test is flawed too, as it tests something she does not claim she is able to do.

 

[apoger]

Once again Kramer has made the mistake of confusing the chance of doing something with success rate.

Sadly, I must agree with this.
If I claimed that I could jump a mile straight up, but I needed about three tries to do it, it would still be a fantastic feat. Moving a flame with your mind seems like a smaller feat, but is no less fantastic.

Let's be honest. Most of us think the claimant is either misinterpreting chance events, or is biasing the experiment by influencing the flame with minute air currents. She has chosen a test method that is incredibly vulnerable to such.

I still feel the best way to go is not to dismiss the claim, but to negotiate a protocol that is acceptable.

Again, the claim is telekinesis, not flame pushing. The flame pushing was just the overly complicated way that the claimant thought up to test the telekinesis. What we need is a better test for telekinesis that both parties will find agreeable.

How about this:
A plane of glass is coated with a layer of very fine dust.
Very fine dust being chosen becuase it's incredibly light. A force that could waver a flame, could tap a particle of dust. Unlike a flame, dust particles don't flicker nor reset themselves. I think we can all agree that dust particles are a better target than a flame.
The plane is placed on a table.
A target location is chosen on the plane. Perhaps it can be indicated with a laser pointer.
The claimant can then attempt to push particles in any direction, away from the target location. The claimant will be given as many attempts as she can muster during a time limit. Thus there is no issue with the power only working one in three times. For the sake of argument, let's say that we afford the claimant three hours to poke at the target location.
Success would be if the dust remains undisturbed on the plane, with the exception of the target location which would show clearing, lumping, smudging, or any obvious indication that particles have been moved.



Well, those are my best suggestions on the matter.
I hope all parties involved can come to an argeement that leaves all satisfied.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Apoger, your protocol won't work. She doesn't direct her telekinesis in a straight line like a beam; she skips through supspace to directly affect the flame as if there were no spatial separation. (That's one excuse.)
Is she saying that her TK can't influence the direction of the flame? Because if it can, then the answer is simple. Have her pull the flame towards her on each try. Then, even accepting her 3-in-1 oil hypothesis, a statistically significant result is possible; on each group of three tries, she must at least once pull the flame towards her. (Having negated the possibility of external air currents by, for example, placing the candle in a bell jar.
See? Not so difficult.

 

[webfusion]

throw the dice

"If I can predict the throw of a dice 1 in 3 times, that's paranormal (or I'm cheating)" --

Um, I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but putting my money where my mouth is, I have done this at the Mohegan Sun Casino numerous times. It's called CRAPS. a little game of anticipating the outcome on throws of two dice. On so-called proposition bets, you are "predicting" what the Next Roll will be!
I happen to be fairly good at it. C'mon snake eyes!! (pays 30-to-1)

But I cannot even imagine what JREF would say if I came to them with the proposition that they come stand around and watch how my chip stack grows and after 16 straight hours of play, pay me the million, based on the 1-in-3 "paranormal effect" being proven!!! I wish...
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Also ----

Her claim is telekinesis, not flame pushing

Nope, her claim is flame pushing.

She has not even made one reference of ability to alter at-rest position of a solid such as dust, paper, grains of sand or other minor particles. Where is there any indication of Beth Clarkson even hinting at "moving" anything other than a flickering candle flame?
(by the way, wax melting and pooling under the wick itself can alter the direction that the flame flickers, causing it to "bend sideways" -- try it and you'll see).

 

[B.S]

I can't imagine a more useless ability.

At least if you could bend spoons you could make your supper host cranky.

 

[roger]

Re: throw the dice

Um, I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but putting my money where my mouth is, I have done this at the Mohegan Sun Casino numerous times. It's called CRAPS. a little game of anticipating the outcome on throws of two dice. On so-called proposition bets, you are "predicting" what the Next Roll will be!
I happen to be fairly good at it. C'mon snake eyes!! (pays 30-to-1)

Don't worry about my bubble, it's doing fine.

If you can beat the predicted odds, then yes, JREF will test you. Go ahead and apply.

 

[69dodge]

When trying to measure small forces, it's important to eliminate the effects of air currents. That's why analytical balances are generally enclosed.

A flickering candle flame is just about the worst thing to use; all it is, after all, is hot air currents.

Extremely sensitive torsion balances have been around for hundreds of years. I made a really simple one by tying a string around the middle of a toothpick and hanging it inside an empty 2 liter Coke bottle. Screwing the cap on holds the string in place and completely seals out external air currents. Even so, if I put it on top of my stereo amplifier, the toothpick twists slowly back and forth if the amp is on. I assume this is because air currents are set up inside the bottle due to uneven heating by the amp. If the amp has been off for a while and has cooled down, the toothpick is motionless.

According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, a force of only 10 micrograms or so is enough to twist it noticeably. And the string I used is not especially thin. Using fine thread would make it even more sensitive.

(UnrepentantSinner's link in the other thread also involved torsion balances, although it didn't call them that.)

Ms. Clarkson is a statistician, so it's understandable that she's focusing on the statistical analysis. But it's often much cheaper and easier to reduce the noise in the data directly by better experimental technique rather than by increasing the number of trials and averaging it out. The standard deviation goes like the square root of the number of trials; if I want to reduce the noise by a factor of ten, I need a hundred times as many trials. And, of course, no amount of repetition will eliminate systematic error caused by poor experimental technique.

 

[roger]

Excellent points, 69dodge. I think JREF should take your post nearly verbetim, and send it Beth, as an explanation for why they are declining this challenge unless she can exhibit gross effects with the flame, or subtle effects with a better apparatus.