Challenge applications

[wardenclyffe]

Thanks for all the comments, including the "lighter" ones.

I take the points made, and will now back down, and try not to sidetrack from DD.

When my son gets round to doing an experiment with me, I will give a short summary.

No need to back down or go away. The discussion is interesting. I just think it deserves a thread of its own and DowserDon deserves a thread of his own, as well.

Ward

 

[sadhatter]

Thank you for all your suggestions and help.

When I learned hypnosis I read that people sub-vocalise, and under hypnosis some can "hear" the thoughts. Also that although eyes appear closed, some can "peep" and see the image of the card in the other person's eyes.

And body language, voice tone, and the words used are such give-aways. I am a really good poker player - I do not claim psychic power but knowledge of others, and good at calculating the odds.

So the two of us must be separated in rooms at opposite ends of the house. Perhaps my daughter-in-law in the passage shouts start 1, stop 1, start 2, stop 2 and we write down the card seen and perceived when the stop is shouted. And no-one sees anyone else. Do 20 and then compare sheets. And then again and again.



Scared by the unknown? And what it might do to? Seems reasonable. It seems the numbers go against you because it suggests that "something" might be out there. And I doubt they were masters. Rather things happened beyond their control, and they knew they were not in control.

And I only started really using and trying to experiment and amplify possible psychic abilities once I had a greater understanding of what I am dealing with. Which is only recently. It seems there are powers of good and evil - and getting controlled by evil is frightening to many. I have had experiences which were lessons to me.

A pistol is an unknown to one who is just learning to use one. The nuances of firing it properly, and being safe with it are knowledge that the first time user does not have. And beyond that it is known that a mistake, can , and will kill you. Yet i don't see darn near every single person who claims to have used a pistol say they got scared and stopped using it.

There are a dearth of dangerous real talents out there, that people can and do perform constantly, and they have to learn somewhere, yet only with the paranormal is the amount of folks who just give up in fear so terribly high.

Maybe i am a tad psychic myself, because i can anticipate your repsonse " But people can learn about guns beforehand, the paranormal is a total unknown." , the problem is, that if it is, you have just admitted there is no one that knows of it, so we can dismiss the ramblings of those who say they do. But that would destroy the premise of the "masters" you were speaking of.

So either A) the paranormal is a complete unknown, thereby it is reasonable for folks to fear it ( though this still doesn't clear up why there are no thrill seekers that take the risk. We have folks who jump out of ******* planes for fun, but no one would be silly enough to mess with psychic powers...) , or B) There is evidence of the paranormal, so it isn't an unknown , so it makes little sense why people fear it so.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Upon re-reading my post, I may have been a little overzealous or impolite. What I meant to convey was, PartSkeptic, that I am greatly looking forward to results - any results - from an actual test or self-test. For the last years, please allow the brevity, we have seen a lot of this:

1. Forum member claims ability.

2. When asked to produce data to confirm ability, forum member produces words.

3. When told words do not equal satisfactory data, forum member produces more words.



Conclusion: Forum member has not produced data, but many, many, many words. Exceptions: Edge and connie sonne. That did not, and in edge's case does not, prevent them from producing many, many, many more words.

Since you're retired, take an afternoon and read both cases. Have chocolate or other helpers ready.

I took some time to check out what I could find. You are right. Words ... and more words.

I was able to read the test procedure for connie sonne. I agree it was simple and clear. It seems she failed from some of the postings afterward. I am not sure why she felt she failed. Fraud? No reason for fraud!

I now understand many of the comments made to me. For me it was instructive to have the discussion. Thanks.

 

[Almo]

I now understand many of the comments made to me. For me it was instructive to have the discussion. Thanks.

No problem. And feel welcome to hang around the forum and discuss stuff. You're already past one of the most important hurdles: you have a willingness to learn.

 

[sadhatter]

And all this is irrelevant if he can do what he claims to be able to do. For any applicant who truly has the ability they claim to have, any discussion of odds is unnecessary, because they are not operating under random chance.

And this is what bothers me.

Paranormal folk explain their abilities a lot like i explain a lot of weird talents i have. Knife throwing is the best example. They have a good grasp of it, but always admit they are not perfect and they have limitations. But when said limitations are taken into consideration, and a test designed for them is done, they fail.

This is the very definition of a braggart, someone who claims a set of abilities and cannot, when said abilities are asked to be reproduced replicate them.

The paranormal folks like to make it seem as if someone is doing the equivalent of asking them to throw a knife through a hole just large enough for the blade to go in ( to simplify, a trick that would be darn near impossible when the physics of knife throwing are taken into account.). But that is not the case, they are the ones who tell of their limitations, but this always raises another point.

What if i said i could throw knives very well, but that my particular talent doesn't really work well when people are watching, even by camera. And if anyone touches the board i am using, besides myself, that will screw up my throw. So in order to test this, we need to have a person and camera free environment, and no one can touch, in any way, my equipment of the test.

Wouldn't it seem kind of obvious that i am looking to cheat?

But that is about half of the claims we get. One's limitations in an art, seldom co-incide with what would be conducive to cheating. Yet in the paranormal, they always seem to.

So really we get 2 kinds of folks, those who say their limitations co-incide with things that would help them cheat, and those who simply cannot perform when their limitations are taken into an account and a test is designed.

I cannot think of a talent i posses that i could not design a test for that would eliminate cheating and allow me to do my thing. And to put a point on it, it certainly wouldn't take me the giant amount of time it seems to take every paranormal person to come up with this. I could understand if the vast majority of the claimants were claiming something like " I just discovered this power yesterday and i want to be tested." , yeah it might be a bit wacky, but we have people who claim to be doing these things for years, yet have no grasp of the minutia of their talent.

As an example, here is a protocol , designed in under 8 minutes, that would show, sans possibility of cheating that a person can throw a knife, 10 feet, without mechanical or other aid.

1. All knives used will be inspected by both parties as well as an impartial expert, and a model of knife designed for a standard throw ( not fluted, or in any other way modified for a straight, or "S" throw.) will be agreed upon by both parties before hand.

2. The throwing method in question must use at least a 3/4th rotation throw. The claimant can use more than a 3/4th rotation throw, but must use at least a 3/4th rotation throw.

3. No system of marking distance will be available to the claimant. Floors , ceilings, walls, etc will be free from visible markings. The claimant will be informed of the appropriate minimum distance, but no further visual or auditory clues will be allowed.

4. The target will also be inspected by both parties as well as an impartial observer, made of a reasonable species of wood common to throwing ( soft pine would be a good example.) knives, and be of a standard commonly used size in regards to knife throwing. If no agreement can be reached as to what constitutes "standard" in this case, a target size must be agreed upon by both the testing agency and the claimant.

5. The action of the knife will be filmed, both for purposes of making sure the knife is rotating an appropriate number of times, and that no trickery is happening in regards to the target.

6. The knife will be inspected directly before the throw by both parties and an impartial observer for any trace of resin, epoxy, or any other modification of the blade prior to the throw.

7. Blades will be inspected after the throw has been recorded, again to ensure that at no point was the blade modified in any fashion.

8. Wind conditions will be monitored to make sure that wind is not a factor in the throw. Turbulence should be no more than would be common on a non storming, average summer day ( an average of the last 10 years of summer non storming weather for the location should provide an appropriate baseline.).

9. Humidity will be controlled to be that of an average summer day.

10. Lighting will be no brighter than an average day, or baring that, no brighter than an average office building.

11. Sound levels will be adjusted so that they are no more than average background noise expected in a city.

And there it is, a protocol in about 7 minutes, that would guarantee no cheating could take place. Clearly one can see the many limitations and complications inherent in knife throwing, but one can also see that none of said limitations are correlated with what would make it easy to cheat. Yet the paranormal folk need years, years to design a test that would provide the same level of surety of an ability.

 

[Gr8wight]

What if i said i could throw knives very well, but that my particular talent doesn't really work well when people are watching, even by camera. And if anyone touches the board i am using, besides myself, that will screw up my throw. So in order to test this, we need to have a person and camera free environment, and no one can touch, in any way, my equipment of the test.

Wouldn't it seem kind of obvious that i am looking to cheat?

It might seem that way to some observers, but for the purposes of a JREF million dollar test, the JREF would never say that. They would simply say, "I'm sorry, but your claim, as described, is untestable under the rules of the challenge."

 

[PartSkeptic]

A pistol is an unknown to one who is just learning to use one. The nuances of firing it properly, and being safe with it are knowledge that the first time user does not have. And beyond that it is known that a mistake, can , and will kill you. Yet i don't see darn near every single person who claims to have used a pistol say they got scared and stopped using it.

If psychic powers are controlled by a higher power (and perhaps a evil force) then it is like leaving loaded guns (of different types) around for a primitive tribe to find. They play with one, and one day it goes off killing some-one. A few people decide that it can give power if it can be controlled, and they go through a ritual and mumbo-jumbo. They don't realize that the ritual involves cocking the mechanism and pulling the trigger. The tribe gets to know that a pistol can do things, and can be used for good and bad, but they also know they sometimes loved ones or self can be killed. So when one finds a pistol lying around they decide to drop it in fear and leave it there. They don't have experts to train and teach them.

A few weeks ago, my grand-daughter fired her father's pistol at the firing range. Despite watching first, the experience shocked and frightened her. Feeling that kick and power in ones hands, is not the same as observing.

 

[Pixel42]

I was able to read the test procedure for connie sonne. I agree it was simple and clear. It seems she failed from some of the postings afterward. I am not sure why she felt she failed. Fraud? No reason for fraud!

Here's the thread about the Connie Sonne challenge in which she participated: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132871

You'll notice that several of us urged her to do a blind self test but she steadfastly refused to do so, insisting that it was unnecessary because she already "knew" she could pass such a simple straightforward test. It's a 20 page thread but you only need to read the first page or two to get the gist.

This is the thread about the aftermath of her failure, in which she again participated: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148178

At the time of the test she explained away her failure as due to the mysterious higher powers that granted her abilities having decided that The Time Was Not Yet Right for them to be revealed, but a few weeks later she decided JREF must have cheated. She returned to this thread periodically over the next year or so making increasingly libellous allegations against JREF and Banachek, vowing each time to be about to reveal evidence of fraud and to take legal action (neither of which ever materialised) before eventually being banned. Once again we urged her to do an independantly witnessed self test using the same protocol, pointing out that success would be the best evidence she could produce that she had indeed been cheated; once again she ignored all such suggestions.

Edge still posts occasionally, in fact I'm surprised we haven't yet seen him on this thread. He seems to be trying to come up with a test protocol for dowsing which is sufficently complicated that no-one will be able to tell that it isn't scientifically rigorous. There was another dowser who posted regularly called Old Bob who also steadfastedly refused to do any meaningful blind testing, insisting that his anecdotal evidence was all that he, or we, required to "know" dowsing worked. He was eventually banned for threatening other posters with physical violence.

You might wonder why, in the light of the above, any of us bother to engage with the paranormal believers who come here at all, but it's not always a complete waste of time. There have been some actual practitioners who came to the forum to find out how to apply for the MDC, read the links we directed them to about confirmation bias and cold reading etc, did some self testing, and realised they had indeed been inadvertantly fooling themselves. Some have stayed and become forum stalwarts, even moderators. I mostly keep engaging because marshalling evidence and arguments is a good form of mental exercise for people like me who have retired but still want to keep their minds working, and the occasional success in opening someone's mind is a nice bonus. Plus of course there is always the hope, usually unspoken but present I suspect in the back of the minds of even the most cynical of sceptics, that one day someone will indeed actually be able to do what they claim, and a whole new area for scientific exploration will be opened up.

 

[Cuddles]

All I am saying is that JREF could be a little more open about odds and formula (some tests use different formulae, but there are probably only two or three)

For the formulae, it's impossible to be more open since nothing more than basic maths is required. This is high school probability, not some kind of secret knowledge only the JREF is party to. As for what odds are required, it's already been explained that that depends very much on what the actual claim is and how it will be tested, so it's impossible for the JREF to be open about it in advance because they don't know in advance. However, they are entirely open about it during the negotiations with an applicant.

It's also worth remembering, as has been pointed out every time this topic has come up, that the odds are utterly irrelevant to the applicant. The odds of winning by chance are the odds that the JREF will lose their money even if the applicant does not have the claimed ability. But the applicant (hopefully) believes they do have the claimed ability, so they shouldn't care in the slightest how much chance they would have of winning without it. The only reason the odds of winning by chance are in any way relevant to the applicant is that they can affect the length of time and complexity of a test. But that just means they should focus on the length of time and complexity, not the odds themselves.

Any applicant who genuinely believes they have magic powers should be happy to accept odds of winning by chance of trillions to one, because that number has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual chance of winning, which should be so close to 100% that you can't tell the difference. That so many people make such a fuss about their chance of winning without using their ability tells us an awful lot about how much they really believe in it.

If psychic powers are controlled by a higher power (and perhaps a evil force) then it is like leaving loaded guns (of different types) around for a primitive tribe to find. They play with one, and one day it goes off killing some-one. A few people decide that it can give power if it can be controlled, and they go through a ritual and mumbo-jumbo. They don't realize that the ritual involves cocking the mechanism and pulling the trigger. The tribe gets to know that a pistol can do things, and can be used for good and bad, but they also know they sometimes loved ones or self can be killed. So when one finds a pistol lying around they decide to drop it in fear and leave it there.

And how is this relevant to your claims of magic powers? Obviously you haven't decided to just drop it, you claim to be actively experimenting and to understand what you are dealing with. This is the problem with so many woo claims - the excuses invented to explain why the claims can't be proven often directly contradict the claims themselves.

A few weeks ago, my grand-daughter fired her father's pistol at the firing range. Despite watching first, the experience shocked and frightened her. Feeling that kick and power in ones hands, is not the same as observing.

Yet it can, in fact, be observed. Something no magic power has ever managed to achieve.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

If psychic powers are controlled by a higher power (and perhaps a evil force) then it is like leaving loaded guns (of different types) around for a primitive tribe to find. They play with one, and one day it goes off killing some-one. A few people decide that it can give power if it can be controlled, and they go through a ritual and mumbo-jumbo. They don't realize that the ritual involves cocking the mechanism and pulling the trigger. The tribe gets to know that a pistol can do things, and can be used for good and bad, but they also know they sometimes loved ones or self can be killed. So when one finds a pistol lying around they decide to drop it in fear and leave it there. They don't have experts to train and teach them.
...

I like to play Advocatus Diaboli, hence I would claim that if psychic powers were controlled by a higher power, it could as well be a benevolent force. Or both.

Do you realise how easily one falls into the temptation of using words, words and more words to theorize, hypothesize and rationalize, instead of providing a simple demonstration?

More lightly put: A woman is either pregnant or she is not. There is a simple way to find out.

 

[PartSkeptic]

You might wonder why, in the light of the above, any of us bother to engage with the paranormal believers who come here at all, but it's not always a complete waste of time. There have been some actual practitioners who came to the forum to find out how to apply for the MDC, read the links we directed them to about confirmation bias and cold reading etc, did some self testing, and realised they had indeed been inadvertantly fooling themselves. Some have stayed and become forum stalwarts, even moderators. I mostly keep engaging because marshalling evidence and arguments is a good form of mental exercise for people like me who have retired but still want to keep their minds working, and the occasional success in opening someone's mind is a nice bonus. Plus of course there is always the hope, usually unspoken but present I suspect in the back of the minds of even the most cynical of sceptics, that one day someone will indeed actually be able to do what they claim, and a whole new area for scientific exploration will be opened up.

Retired. I wondered about your time. And I too find this to be mental exercise.

I could never post like this if I was not (perhaps only temporarily) retired. And yes, you answered a question in the back of my mind. While some may like the "cut and thrust", and the humour can be good, I appreciate the answers I get from posters like you. I am learning a lot, and so will stay with it for a while.

You have expressed a key thought well - "HOPE" - that some-one might provide some evidence that there is indeed be more to life. I definitely have that hope.

I have some more posts once I do complete the research that this forum has lead me to.

I will try an experiment once (50 + 50 trials - me sending, then son sending). I will be really surprised to beat random chance, but is it happens then I will do another test but even stricter.

IMHO, (I am learning abbreviations on the forum) anyone who does NOT do strict blind testing before applying is fooling themselves.

 

[Pixel42]

DowserDon has emailed me to say he has arranged a test for March 25th. The location is about a two hour drive from where I live, so I should be able to attend. He proposes to use a single walkway with ten possible dowsing spots and a single trench, which should be adequate for a "proof of concept" self test.

 

[Almo]

DowserDon has emailed me to say he has arranged a test for March 25th. The location is about a two hour drive from where I live, so I should be able to attend. He proposes to use a single walkway with ten possible dowsing spots and a single trench, which should be adequate for a "proof of concept" self test.

Awesome. Looking forward to reading about the results!

 

[steenkh]

DowserDon has emailed me to say he has arranged a test for March 25th.

Sounds great! Is this a test for the MDC, with Professor French acting for the JREF, or is it all just a private test?

Anyway, I hope that DowserDon's dowsing works so that we find that the world is not just causing awe and wonder, but we have gotten the laws of physics completely wrong, which will be really exciting!

 

[Pixel42]

Is this a test for the MDC, with Professor French acting for the JREF, or is it all just a private test?

It's a private self test, though DowserDon says he will invite Prof French to observe.

 

[steenkh]

Excellent. Private self tests are so rare. DowserDon has my respect.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Sounds good so far. But let's not start bleeping each other's bleeps just yet.

 

[Ron Swanson]

The thing I noticed and has not been discussed much (perhaps because it's so obvious) is that this test protocol will be very difficult to accomplished at any reasonable cost and positively preclude cheating.

Would the acreage have to be tented to eliminate anyone of a thousand people and aircraft viewing the progress, or can that be accomplished by simply secluding the participant? How could the possibility be eliminated that someone sees the progress and transmits info to the participant?

The plywood idea is not workable, it would be too easy to see the results of the digging, I'd propose the entire acreage would need to be ploughed and smoothed over after the digging is completed ... not out of the question a simple half day job with local farming equipment.

To save on the hand digging a simple rotary post hole digger on the same farm equipment could be used ... perhaps 18" in diameter?

 

[Pixel42]

The thing I noticed and has not been discussed much (perhaps because it's so obvious) is that this test protocol will be very difficult to accomplished at any reasonable cost and positively preclude cheating.

DowserDon has indicated that the cost of the materials for a full test is a concern, it's one reason he's doing a cut down 'proof of concept' dry run before proceeding with it.

Would the acreage have to be tented to eliminate anyone of a thousand people and aircraft viewing the progress, or can that be accomplished by simply secluding the participant? How could the possibility be eliminated that someone sees the progress and transmits info to the participant?

I would think keeping the applicant and those in the digging party under observation (and obviously temporarily confiscating their mobile phones) would be sufficient. JREF may disagree, but it has done similar tests many times before so it obviously has ways of doing this which it considers acceptable.

DowserDon has agreed to me bringing a couple of friends along on March 25th, so we can arrange for there to be at least one observer with both him and the digger whilst they are seperated. Not that there's any real need to guard against cheating in this case - this test is for his own benefit after all - but obviously precautions against accidental information leakage still need to be taken.

The plywood idea is not workable, it would be too easy to see the results of the digging, I'd propose the entire acreage would need to be ploughed and smoothed over after the digging is completed ... not out of the question a simple half day job with local farming equipment.

Making sure all the dowsing spots look the same whether they have been disturbed or not is definitely the most problematic aspect of this protocol. This idea is certainly workable and may be the one JREF prefers. I don't think DowserDon would object to the surface being ploughed over, he seems to think whatever it is his dowsing is detecting is further down. For the dry run on March 25th, though, just making sure all the dowsing spots look equally disturbed will have to do.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Making sure all the dowsing spots look the same whether they have been disturbed or not is definitely the most problematic aspect of this protocol.

Isn't that a question of digging in all spots, but only leaving targets in some?

(Sorry if this has already been addressed)

Hans