Challenge applications

[Pixel42]

I am going to experiment with mental telepathy with my son.

Repeating a scientific experiment that's been done many times before can be fun and instructive, you always learn more by doing something yourself than by reading about what happened when other people did it. Just don't expect to get different results from those everyone else got, because that's not how the universe works. If it was the scientific method wouldn't work, and the world would be a very different place.

This is the fundamental truth previous MDC applicants only discovered when they took the preliminary test. If they were as sensible as DowserDon and had tested themselves earlier using a scientifically rigorous protocol none would ever have got to that point, and a lot of unnecessary public humiliation of sincere, well meaning people would have been avoided.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Just don't expect to get different results from those everyone else got, because that's not how the universe works. If it was the scientific method wouldn't work, and the world would be a very different place.

Thank for some sound advice. I agree with everything you said in your post.

I have some reasons for hoping for a different result for just one challenge. And if there is a successful challenge, I expect that I will no longer be able to do it again. And of course the worst possibility is that I might get great preliminary results to get to the final and then fail there.

It is a really long shot, and I have no illusions about success/failure. My aim is not to challenge scientific method, but to use scientific method to be allowed to make a point that there might be something beyond the laws of physics.

And of course I have to do the usual "soul search" of whether the entire prize must be donated (my preference), or whether I/we can keep a small percentage (5% or 10%) of the prize, or have any say how a portion should be donated (anonymous charity and/or needy friends and family, and some deserving souls I/we know about). My other half of the team has to feel the same.

I am retired and don't need the money at the moment. Material goods and recognition are not on my list of needs. If I could do it anonymously I would.

If my son declines, I know another who has capabilities, and I will approach them.

 

[PartSkeptic]

If i had a nickle, for every previous master of the arcane arts that got "frightened" away from their own ******* superpower, i could set up my own one trillion dollar challenge.

All this debate brings up old memories.

I was about 14 years old. Up late at night reading with the lights on. I heard tires squeal outside, which had happened a few times because they recently installed a traffic light on our nearest intersection. Then I heard heavy footsteps in the wooden-floored passage by the front door. But I knew the front door was locked and the rest of the family was sleeping. My father was away - he worked on construction sites.

The foot steps came down the passage. Logically, it could only be a ghost walking through the front door. Great, I am going to see a genuine ghost. I hope he comes into my bedroom. I was all excited. Then I made the connection with the tires screeching. This ghost was a person who probably got hit by a car and killed. Did I want to see a bloody apparition in my room with powers I did not comprehend? No way. Fear and fright - you have no idea how intense that can be.

I pulled the sheet over my head, and waited. At least I would not see the ghost. I could not hear the footsteps once the ghost reached the dining room which had a carpeted concrete floor. But then I heard the footsteps in my room at the far side where the door was. And heavy breathing - in, out, in out. Was that me? I closed my mouth and held my nose. Not me.

The sounds were getting closer. The footsteps stopped by my bed, and the breathing got closer. I closed my eyes tightly, thinking the ghost might just pop his head under the sheet. Please don't touch me, I silently begged.

Just then a siren sounded in one long burst outside. I heard a sharp intake of breath, and then silence. I then heard my Mom get out of bed and my two brothers get out of bed also. The key sounded in the front door which had an old fashioned heavy mechanism. Voices, excited chatter. I fell asleep under the sheet after the disturbances died down.

The next morning I got the confirmation that a man was knocked off his bicycle and killed.

I repeat my point. You cannot know fear of the unknown until you have been there. Movies and childish pranks just don't do it. I resolved I did not want to see ghosts. And I was a kid who would "put down" injured animals to stop them suffering, when everyone was upset and panicking. Blood and gore did not bother me. My atheistic belief that we were "machines" made it easy to say "just a collection of atoms".

Confirmation bias, faulty memory, false memory, hearing my own heart beat/breathing. Natural explanations which give me reason to doubt my own story.

 

[Pixel42]

You cannot know fear of the unknown until you have been there.

I suffered from sleep paralysis and the accompanying hallucinations on and off for most of my twenties. I didn't discover what it was until years after the episodes stopped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

Sleep paralysis occurs either when falling asleep, or when awakening. [...] The paralysis can last from several seconds to several minutes, with some rare cases being hours, "by which the individual may experience panic symptoms" [...]

In addition, the paralysis may be accompanied by terrifying hallucinations (hypnopompic or hypnagogic), perceived deafening loud noise and an acute sense of danger.[9] Sleep paralysis is particularly frightening to the individual because of the vividness of such hallucinations.[8] The hallucinatory element to sleep paralysis makes it even more likely that someone will interpret the experience as a dream, since completely fanciful or dream-like objects may appear in the room alongside one's normal vision. Some scientists have proposed this condition as an explanation for reports of alien abductions and ghostly encounters.[10]

 

[PartSkeptic]

I suffered from sleep paralysis and the accompanying hallucinations on and off for most of my twenties. I didn't discover what it was until years after the episodes stopped.

Thank for a possible explanation. It is one that I am familiar with. The reason I had not considered it was that I was wide awake and reading in bed. I had not yet turned off the light. It took me along time to actually fall asleep.

There was only one of two other occasions that I thought I saw a ghost. A phantom figure at the bottom of my bed. But I woke from sleeping, and there was some moonlight coming in the window. I closed my eyes and tried to go back to sleep. Now this one I would contribute to some form of partial sleep, or even a dream. Did not seem like it at the time. This for me is a very weak example and easily doubted.

The other occasion is extremely weak. Most woos would be skeptical too. My earliest memory. I was a toddler barely able to talk, and I saw a ghost elephant herd walking down the driveway while I was crying that my mother was driving away. Even then it shocked me because I knew it was not real, and this is why it was my earliest memory by far.

Your story is the sort I would like to discuss in person to understand the phenomenon. I don't know how much the media distort such explanations, and I like to ask my own questions. Part of the search for answers. Have you written about this elsewhere?

 

[Pixel42]

Thank for a possible explanation. It is one that I am familiar with. The reason I had not considered it was that I was wide awake and reading in bed. I had not yet turned off the light. It took me along time to actually fall asleep.

That may be how you remember it, but it may not be what actually happened. You could have been starting to doze and incorporated what you were hearing in real life into a dream, before waking again fully. Hallucination is a frightening word but they are really not that rare and they aren't always a symptom of something wrong mentally. Many people have them, and not just people who suffer from sleep paralysis.

When I was working I had a clock radio which turned on Radio 4 in the morning to wake me up. I once slowly emerged from a dream in which I was adrift on a raft on the ocean being menaced by sharks to discover that someone on the radio was describing in extremely vivid detail how he had drifted on a raft whilst those around him were picked off by sharks. Whilst still partly asleep I had incorporated what I was hearing into a dream.

Your story is the sort I would like to discuss in person to understand the phenomenon. I don't know how much the media distort such explanations, and I like to ask my own questions. Part of the search for answers. Have you written about this elsewhere?

I've mentioned it briefly on other threads here about the phenomenon, as have other sufferers, and of course the subject has been written about extensively elsewhere on the web. It's way off topic for this thread, however, so if you want to discuss it further I suggest you bump one of the existing threads.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I've mentioned it briefly on other threads here about the phenomenon, as have other sufferers, and of course the subject has been written about extensively elsewhere on the web. It's way off topic for this thread, however, so if you want to discuss it further I suggest you bump one of the existing threads.

Thank you for all your input. I am going to pull back. I will check other threads for interest, and follow-up on this topic on the web. Bye for now.

 

[oak]

I stumbled upon this thread after becoming intrigued with the million dollar challenge, which I had never heard of before last night.

I know little about dowsing, specifically. However, I hope you don't mind indulging a newcomer in expressing some thoughts on the general topic:

I implore the skeptic to remain open to the possibility that a display of paranormal ability may very well be inhibited by the artificial constructs of an experiment. As an analogy, I may have trained my dog to consistently "fetch" on command in my yard, but the moment I try to demonstrate his ability to an audience at the local dog park, he fails to do so. This is not because he can't do it, but because the conditions have changed.

It could be argued that, with practice in the dog park environment, he should eventually be able to fetch on command. But perhaps there is something at the dog park location that will always inhibit him from fetching, like another alpha dog that has a tendency to nip at any dog who tries to run after a ball. Perhaps no one even realizes that this is why my dog won't fetch because the influence of the alpha is subtle (it's been demonstrated that dogs pick up on energy from other dogs, an energy that most people will not pick up on. Also, dog's develop strong associations. My dog may have once been nipped by the alpha in a unseen event while trying to retrieve a ball and has consequently learned his lesson and will never try to retrieve a ball in front of the alpha again). Let's also not forgot state-dependent and context-dependent learning.

My point is that we may not always be aware of the subtle effects of the controlled elements of an experiment. It could be the design of the experiment that's the problem. The rub is teasing out experimental design flaw from the power of a human to rationalize in order to uphold a delusion. I noticed that some MDC protocols were rejected because they were so complicated, but perhaps the individual being tested was trying to design a situation that's as real-world as possible. But with this, we begin to enter the realm of a natural experimental design, which I'm assuming would not uphold to the strict standards of the MDC. But hey, it's a million dollars... I wouldn't expect any less.

Some specific points I'd like to make:

Your attempted explanation for what you are detecting - disturbance of soil by man (pipes etc) or water flow - has a number of potential logic holes: why are you not constantly detecting where the soil has been disturbed by tree / plant roots, insects or other creatures tunnelling (you'll be hard pushed to find an area of ground the worms haven't been through!)

Devil's Advocate: " Perhaps because animal and insect tunnels, tree and plant roots, etc. are part of what makes up baseline, undisturbed soil"

You see - there's the problem. Holes measuring one cubic meter? Why? Why can't you perform this test with holes measuring one cubic foot? It sure would save a lot of time and money. Have you actually tried the test with holes smaller than one cubic meter? Have you actually tried the test with holes exactly one cubic meter in volume? If not why not?

I wonder this myself. How exactly was the 1 cubic meter length and depth determined? For example, DD mentioned that he was able to detect gas and electric lines, but from what I found on info about UK gas lines, the minimum depth of a mainline must be 750 mm in a road or verge and 600 mm in a footpath while the depth of a service pipe is minimally 375 mm in private ground and 450 mm in footpaths and highways. Already, we've saved some digging time.

I'll reiterate what many others here have stressed. An experiment fraught with potential design complication/expense should be subject to running one or more pilot tests to further refine said design. Coming up with protocol stipulations that seem to come out of thin air is not sound experimental design.

That's why I think Pixel42's suggestion of finding a local skeptics in the pub group is a good idea. The younger members of the group might be convinced to do some digging and the older members of the group can be blinded to all the digging and placement of targets, but they can be there to supervise the test while the diggers are out of sight.

I don't even think DD is ready for that step yet. It wouldn't hurt to start with a few friends to pretest various aspects of the protocol before even enlisting a group of strangers to put time and energy into the small-scale version of the experiment. Why not first test his own limits by digging several areas of various depth and width to further hone in on an elegant experimental design? Sure, the results would be subject to interpretation limitations as the pretests would probably not be double-blind, but the information gained would be helpful as part of a documented, information-gathering phase of the experiment.

My concern is that many of DD's claims were not objectively validated. Reasoned responses as to why he was getting a "hit" or "miss" in areas that he would have thought otherwise (e.g. "I rationalized..." "Probably the remains of....") does not constitute valid proof. While I'm not saying DD's claims are false, it raises more questions than answers that should be further explored before jumping the gun on creating such an expensive experimental protocol. The human mind's ability to rationalize, reconstruct a memory, delude, etc. is powerful. DD, if you are truly pursuing the MDC in the name of science, I urge you to do so with upmost prudence. Keep your mind open to the possibility that this could all be in your head by truly testing its limitations.

 

[Ladewig]

It could be argued that, with practice in the dog park environment, he should eventually be able to fetch on command. But perhaps there is something at the dog park location that will always inhibit him from fetching, like another alpha dog that has a tendency to nip at any dog who tries to run after a ball. Perhaps no one even realizes that this is why my dog won't fetch because the influence of the alpha is subtle (it's been demonstrated that dogs pick up on energy from other dogs, an energy that most people will not pick up on. Also, dog's develop strong associations. My dog may have once been nipped by the alpha in a unseen event while trying to retrieve a ball and has consequently learned his lesson and will never try to retrieve a ball in front of the alpha again). Let's also not forgot state-dependent and context-dependent learning.

My point is that we may not always be aware of the subtle effects of the controlled elements of an experiment. It could be the design of the experiment that's the problem.

Emphatically yes. When performing a scientific experiments (or a scientific demonstrations) it is imperative to isolate variables. That is why every JREF dowser test (and every other JREF Challenge test) begins with an open testing phase. The dowser is shown exactly where the target is and is asked to perform his dowsing procedure. The applicant is specifically told that this phase is to ensure that there is no underground pipe or obstacle that the test-makers are unaware of, that there is no overwhelming electrical field or magnetic field that is influencing the dowser's abilities, and that there is no unknown or unrecognized object or force preventing a successful demonstration of the dowser's abilities. The dowser must be able to perform a successful open test before the double-blind test. After the dowsers pass this phase they attempt the double-blind phase and when they fail, all sorts of excuses arise: the skeptical juju blocked my powers (aka the goat effect), the foundation of this building has too much iron rebar, the sun was in my eyes, Jupiter was in Scorpio, yadda, yadda. They always pass the open test and agree to the test conditions, but they always fail the double blind test.


ETA: a much more minor point: there is a slight flaw with the dog in the park analogy. If one is charging between $40 and $400 per hour to demonstrate one's dog's ability to fetch things, then one should be able to easily identify the vast majority of factors that will limit one's dog's performance.

MORE ETA: welcome. This forum is populated by a very, very wide range of people. If you find some deliberately (or accidentally) off-putting or downright rude, please ignore them and participate with the rest of us. In general, people will not mock you for spelling or grammar errors unless they occur in a post in which you are bragging about your superior intelligence or education. Also, cow-orkers is not an accidental misspelling of co-workers.

 

[oak]

Yes, it appears the dowsing challenges have specifically been subject to deluded thinking. An individual succeeding in the open test only to fail the double-blind reasonably eliminates the possibility that it was the "fault" of the experimental procedure. However, I did not intend my analogy to specifically explain away such clear-cut examples of the subject not being able to do what he/she claims to be able to do. My purpose was to point out that in other, less clear-cut instances, there may very well have been a potential design flaw. A design flaw that may not even be known beforehand. Or, the candidate recognized a potential design flaw only to be rejected on the grounds of being difficult or unreasonable in wanting to change a particular protocol to such seemingly haphazard stipulations. As a result, the candidate never even gets as far as the experimental challenge because his or her protocol changes were rejected.

I would urge potential candidates to do exactly what DD is being urged to do. Perform pilot studies. If you can reasonably demonstrate that a particular protocol change is necessary (e.g. such as needing to use a certain kind of envelope in order to more adequately predict what's inside it - assuming the envelope is not one that would be easier to cheat with), run a pre-test that actually shows this to be the case. The more complicated the necessary protocol, the more you'd need to prove that these are the conditions under which you'd need to successfully perform your "act."

 

[oak]

ETA: a much more minor point: there is a slight flaw with the dog in the park analogy. If one is charging between $40 and $400 per hour to demonstrate one's dog's ability to fetch things, then one should be able to easily identify the vast majority of factors that will limit one's dog's performance.

You edited this while I was writing my previous response

We can presume that a person who is charging (in effect, charging one million dollars) to demonstrate an ability should know its limitations. However, I'm arguing that it is entirely possible to miss something that one would never even think would influence results. Just because a person has an ability and has been able to demonstrate that ability in some situations does not necessarily mean that the individual knows the whys or hows of the ability. They may be just as mystified as everyone else. For example, infants are born with a plantar grasp reflex. The infant does not know why or how he's able to do it, but that doesn't mean he can't do it. Okay, yes, we now come to the argument that even though the infant does not know the hows or whys he will still be able to demonstrate it during an experimental condition... but what if the experiment was set up at just the time that the infant loses the reflex, as all infants do. Of course, we know that infants lose the ability at a certain age so this is easily explained by science, but what exactly do we know about the nuances, developmental limitations, ability to control paranormal phenomena? Very little, indeed.

Hope that made sense.... and thanks for the welcome

 

[Ladewig]

Yes, it appears the dowsing challenges have specifically been subject to deluded thinking. An individual succeeding in the open test only to fail the double-blind reasonably eliminates the possibility that it was the "fault" of the experimental procedure. However, I did not intend my analogy to specifically explain away such clear-cut examples of the subject not being able to do what he/she claims to be able to do. My purpose was to point out that in other, less clear-cut instances, there may very well have been a potential design flaw. A design flaw that may not even be known beforehand. Or, the candidate recognized a potential design flaw only to be rejected on the grounds of being difficult or unreasonable in wanting to change a particular protocol to such seemingly haphazard stipulations. As a result, the candidate never even gets as far as the experimental challenge because his or her protocol changes were rejected.

I would urge potential candidates to do exactly what DD is being urged to do. Perform pilot studies. If you can reasonably demonstrate that a particular protocol change is necessary (e.g. such as needing to use a certain kind of envelope in order to more adequately predict what's inside it - assuming the envelope is not one that would be easier to cheat with), run a pre-test that actually shows this to be the case. The more complicated the necessary protocol, the more you'd need to prove that these are the conditions under which you'd need to successfully perform your "act."

I mostly agree with all that.

 

[Ladewig]

Yes, it appears the dowsing challenges have specifically been subject to deluded thinking. An individual succeeding in the open test only to fail the double-blind reasonably eliminates the possibility that it was the "fault" of the experimental procedure. However, I did not intend my analogy to specifically explain away such clear-cut examples of the subject not being able to do what he/she claims to be able to do. My purpose was to point out that in other, less clear-cut instances, there may very well have been a potential design flaw. A design flaw that may not even be known beforehand. Or, the candidate recognized a potential design flaw only to be rejected on the grounds of being difficult or unreasonable in wanting to change a particular protocol to such seemingly haphazard stipulations. As a result, the candidate never even gets as far as the experimental challenge because his or her protocol changes were rejected.

A qualified yes. I could seek out a very experienced lawyer who charges $400/hour and yet he misses some obscure legal precedence and thus I lose my case. At that point it would be incorrect for me to say, "all lawyers are frauds." But if I approach dozens or hundreds of $400/hour lawyers and they all predict I will win my case and I always lose my case, then the odds of me finding a useful $400/hour lawyer to win this particular case is diminished.

I would urge potential candidates to do exactly what DD is being urged to do. Perform pilot studies. If you can reasonably demonstrate that a particular protocol change is necessary (e.g. such as needing to use a certain kind of envelope in order to more adequately predict what's inside it - assuming the envelope is not one that would be easier to cheat with), run a pre-test that actually shows this to be the case. The more complicated the necessary protocol, the more you'd need to prove that these are the conditions under which you'd need to successfully perform your "act."

I will agree that this approach is useful for DD's test, for other dowser tests, and other JREF Challenge tests. Surprisingly (or not depending on one's view of human nature) very, very few applicants follow this advice and perform a single blind or double blind test before showing up for the Challenge's preliminary test.

 

[oak]

I would also posit that the average person has limited knowledge of the scientific method and how it may work for or against them. Experimental design is COMPLICATED! Particularly when attempting to prove something at p = <0.001! I mean, dang! Statistics is certainly not my forte, but the probability that a medication has an effect need only be <0.05... and there's far more than a million at stake there!

 

[Almo]

#1 PartSkeptic: he must not be able to see you at all. Body language is a powerful communicator.

Emphasized for emphasis.

Emphasized emphasis is emphatic.

 

[Pixel42]

A poster has mentioned on another thread that Professor Chris French, DowserDon's appointed tester, is speaking at a meeting of Reading Skeptics in the pub on March 15th. Details here:

http://reading.skepticsinthepub.org/Event.aspx/873/Weird-Science

I've used the email address DowserDon PM'd me to let him know, in case he would like to attend.

 

[steenkh]

Thank for a possible explanation. It is one that I am familiar with. The reason I had not considered it was that I was wide awake and reading in bed. I had not yet turned off the light. It took me along time to actually fall asleep.

In my youth I had lots of experience with sleep paralysis. Mostly, I felt wide awake when it happened. The effect was simply that I had lost control over my body, like my brain was awake, but my body asleep. It was frightening in the beginning, because I did not know what happened, but I usually struggled my way out of the situation and regained control.

Later, I had experiences where I immediately slipped back into paralysis, although I had just been able to move. Once, I experienced being able to move one arm (usually moving one arm would be sufficient to end the spell) but the rest of the body still did not follow. As I gained experience with the condition, it was less frightening, and eventually, I just let myself slide into sleep when in paralysis.

Over the years, it disappeared.

 

[zooterkin]

A poster has mentioned on another thread that Professor Chris French, DowserDon's appointed tester, is speaking at a meeting of Reading Skeptics in the pub on March 15th. Details here:

http://reading.skepticsinthepub.org/Event.aspx/873/Weird-Science

I've used the email address DowserDon PM'd me to let him know, in case he would like to attend.

I expect Chris French's email address is available somewhere, but he is also reachable via Twitter at https://twitter.com/#!/chriscfrench if someone wants to ask him directly.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Some input and comment would be much appreciated. Math and rule checked needed.

I gave some thought to the number of trials, the number of cases, and what will constitute a valid result. I looked at the rules and the application form.

DowserDon is proposing 4 trials (4 lanes) with 6 cases (6 spots with equal possibility). If Don gets 4 correct picks in the preliminary, and 4 correct in the final, then his odds are 1,296 and 1,296, and the overall odds are 1,296 times 1,296 giving 1,679,616. 1,296 is BDF result and is also 6x6x6x6. This is his best shot.

I gave some thought to testing telepathy with Zener cards. How many trials and how many correct, and how is the overall or final is calculated. Not simple math by any means unless 100% correct results are always obtained.

I found a formula on JREF where someone is discussing the odds for 20 trials for kids using zener cards, and on further research found that Excel has a formula called the BINOM.DIST (BDF) (where one must use FALSE for the last field).

If Don doubles the number of lanes to 8 (8 trials) then if he gets 6 hits instead of 8 correct his odds are 2,399. If he does this on the finals, one might say that his overall odds were 2,399 times 2,399 giving odds of 5,757,367. But using the BDF formula means that he had 16 trials with 12 hits and this gives odds of 2,480,097. If he agreed to beating odds of 4 million, he could lose if he did not do his homework properly.

It would help to know in advance what formulas, odds and combination of preliminary with final will be used.

Why not tell possible applicants to go to Excel (or get a friend to go to Excel) and play with it using the proper formulae, so that everyone can get some idea of the odds?

When I checked out what type of applications were received, I wonder how such esoteric claims could ever be reduced to a formula.

 

[gnome]

I understand that that one needs to beat chance significantly in a test. If that happened and some-one won the prize, just how many would say "Since psychic phenomena do not exist, there was some cheating" or "What went wrong - I don't believe the test demonstrated psychic ability".

Some might. Though the better the test was designed, the fewer people would--which is why they try so hard to come up with as good a test as possible, leaving nearly nothing to chance and trying to eliminate all chance of cheating.

If someone actually passed the MDC, the most common response would not be "how did he cheat?" but "let's study what he can do and learn why it works".