Challenge applications

[wardenclyffe]

Sadly, he is probably dead by now. He was in his 70s when I witnessed the dowsing and that was in the eighties.

You snooze, you lose.

Ward

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

This is a valid point. However, we should expect it to also "work" some of the time when testing, if only as a consequence of coincidence or "luck". It is interesting, at least from the links and references to historical testing on here, that it never "works" under controlled conditions. A statistical fluke perhaps?

When we say that dowsing has never worked under controlled conditions, we don't mean that no dowser has ever picked the right bucker in a controlled test. Of course they have. We mean that they have never picked the right bucket any more often than someone choosing purely by chance.

 

[Explorer]

So what, exactly, would you propose is tested for, that people do things unconsciously? No need - happens all of the time. Ask anyone who drives a car.

So QED for you then. Congratulations!

Because of this:

Let this run its natural course before making cynical comment, I get the feeling you may be surprised by his final conclusions and own comment, whether he is successful or not.

Yes, it would be premature to comment before an admission that his hypothesis is wrong as a consequence of a determination to continue with the experiments. An obvious interpretation of my attitude if you are able to read and digest comment, that is.

... and this:

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
This is anecdotal I know, and I am not asking you to believe me, but it has coloured my attitude to dowsing to certain extent.

Let me explain, "to a certain extent" does not mean wholesale acceptance of the efficacy of dowsing. I know that is what you want me to say, but I would be lying.

No need to get upset - I'm just trying to check your understanding of statistics and controlled testing. It seems you don't quite grasp them, that's all.

Why would you think I am upset? You don't know me, and I was merely pointing out you were wrong with your shrill response.

 

[Explorer]

When we say that dowsing has never worked under controlled conditions, we don't mean that no dowser has ever picked the right bucker in a controlled test. Of course they have. We mean that they have never picked the right bucket any more often than someone choosing purely by chance.

I take your point.

You see, I think that DD is actually doing what all claimants should do prior to a test. He is testing his own ability to pass a given prescribed test.

The obvious conclusion from the above, is that no applications for the MDC, or any other controlled evaluation, would ever be submitted if failure was the consistent outcome of the practice sessions.

It seems to me, and you may want to correct me on this one, that many claimants do not do this simple thing. They have so much confidence in their abilities that they are happy to accept any test at face value, well designed or otherwise. The Richard Dawkins dowser testing in his last TV series is a good example of that, when at a paranormal fair, he recruited several dowsers ad hoc, and about half a dozen or so, agreed to a test, where they had to find water under several buckets. It seemed to me, that none of them had actually practiced the elements of the test before, and that their confidence was misplaced. They all failed the test.

We should be complaining that dowsers are wasting time accepting a test, if they haven't pre-tested the test. We should not be criticising their misplaced confidence, only their naivety, and should be positively encouraging people like DD, who make paranormal claims, to carry out pre-testing, before expressing confidence in their abilities.

 

[Southwind17]

So QED for you then. Congratulations!

I'll take that as a "Mmm .. good point", then.

Yes, it would be premature to comment before an admission that his hypothesis is wrong as a consequence of a determination to continue with the experiments. An obvious interpretation of my attitude if you are able to read and digest comment, that is.

No, it would not be premature to comment. We are as good as certain what the outcome will be.

Let me explain, "to a certain extent" does not mean wholesale acceptance of the efficacy of dowsing. I know that is what you want me to say, but I would be lying.

No, that's not what I want you to say. I don't want you to say anything in particular. "To a certain extent", however, means you have not dismissed it, and I'm interested to understand what drives your partial belief. If it's the anecdote that you cited then I'd be interested to understand why, given the elementary education that you've received here to date (or has the colour of your judgement now reverted to something approaching normal?).

Why would you think I am upset?

Oh, I don't know - wild guess?

You don't me, and I was merely pointing out you were wrong with your shrill response.

Except that I appear not to be.

 

[Pixel42]

It seems to me, and you may want to correct me on this one, that many claimants do not do this simple thing.

I'm pretty sure no-one who has got as far as taking the preliminary test had done a dry run of the protocol they'd agreed to. Connie Sonne, for example, steadfastly refused to do so despite constant urging by myself and others.

I imagine that those who understand the need for such testing and do some never get as far as applying, let alone taking a preliminary test. DowserDon is unusual in that he understood the need, but applied before doing any.

They have so much confidence in their abilities that they are happy to accept any test at face value, well designed or otherwise.

I think the applicants agree to the proposed test protocol because they can see it's a fair test of their ability, and as they "know" they have this ability they see no need to practice beforehand. I imagine that anyone who believes they can detect water deep underground would think detecting it under a bucket is going to be a doddle. They take the test to convince other people that they have this ability; they feel no need to convince themselves any further. What they seem unwilling to even try to understand is that the evidence which has convinced them is wholely inadequate.

We should be complaining that dowsers are wasting time accepting a test, if they haven't pre-tested the test. We should not be criticising their misplaced confidence, only their naivety, and should be positively encouraging people like DD, who make paranormal claims, to carry out pre-testing, before expressing confidence in their abilities.

JREF urges potential applicants to test themselves using the kind of protocol they will be required to use before applying, any applicant or potential applicant who posts here is urged to do a dry run and helped to come up with a suitable protocol. If they simply refuse, and DowserDon is the first applicant I know of who didn't, what more can we do?

 

[Explorer]

I'm pretty sure no-one who has got as far as taking the preliminary test had done a dry run of the protocol they'd agreed to. Connie Sonne, for example, steadfastly refused to do so despite constant urging by myself and others.

I imagine that those who understand the need for such testing and do some never get as far as applying, let alone taking a preliminary test. DowserDon is unusual in that he understood the need, but applied before doing any.


I think the applicants agree to the proposed test protocol because they can see it's a fair test of their ability, and as they "know" they have this ability they see no need to practice beforehand. I imagine that anyone who believes they can detect water deep underground would think detecting it under a bucket is going to be a doddle. They take the test to convince other people that they have this ability; they feel no need to convince themselves any further. What they seem unwilling to even try to understand is that the evidence which has convinced them is wholely inadequate.


JREF urges potential applicants to test themselves using the kind of protocol they will be required to use before applying, any applicant or potential applicant who posts here is urged to do a dry run and helped to come up with a suitable protocol. If they simply refuse, and DowserDon is the first applicant I know of who didn't, what more can we do?

Very little more, except make it a condition of the MDC that proof of pre-testing to the applicants satisfaction, must be submiited on the agreed test method, before an application can be accepted. If that eliminates all claimants, then so be it!

Thanks by the way for that feedback.

 

[Southwind17]

Very little more, except make it a condition of the MDC that proof of pre-testing to the applicants satisfaction, must be submiited on the agreed test method, before an application can be accepted. If that eliminates all claimants, then so be it!

I thought the affidavit/media presence prerequisite was intended to overcome the 'spurious' application problem. Pre-testing to the applicant's satisfaction is not a robust prerequisite, given the mindset of most potential applicants!

 

[Explorer]

I thought the affidavit/media presence prerequisite was intended to overcome the 'spurious' application problem. Pre-testing to the applicant's satisfaction is not a robust prerequisite, given the mindset of most potential applicants!

"Gven the mindset of most potential applicants" is pre-judging, and not a very scientific position to take, even if it turns out to be true..

Media presence is no more a "robust" pre-requisite, than my proposal.

It is for the claimant to be both satisfied with the elements of the controlled test, and his/her ability to pass that test in pre-test trials, that is important, to overcome the spurious, IMHO. As I said, proof of pre-testing, which would essentially confirm the applicant's own confidence to perform within the constraints of the MDC, say along with independently verified results, should be mandatory.

 

[Pixel42]

Media presence is no more a "robust" pre-requisite, than my proposal.

I think it's the academic affadavit rather than the media presence that's supposed to provide the safeguard you're requesting.

From the FAQ:

4.8 If I am asked to provide affidavits, who should I get to supply them?

You should approach individuals of an academic standing who are not related to you. The affidavits must be from individuals who are familiar with the scientific method and logical deduction, and can witness your claim from an unbiased standpoint and offer their feedback.

You may consider e-mailing professors at a nearby University. Some would-be applicants have noted that most academics do not believe in the paranormal, and would therefore not be the right type of person to approach with paranormal claims. However, that is kind of the point – an academic’s opinion will not be swayed by a desire to believe, and the evidence will be taken at its own value.

The affidavit should read something like the following:

I have personally witnessed the phenomenon claimed by "(applicant's name)" in his/her application for the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, and I can offer no rational explanation for it.

 

[Southwind17]

"Gven the mindset of most potential applicants" is pre-judging, and not a very scientific position to take, even if it turns out to be true..

It's a matter of fact. One only needs to look at the history of the Challenge to see that. Are you intent on disagreeing with everything I write just for the sake of it, or do you have a comprehension issue?

Media presence is no more a "robust" pre-requisite, than my proposal.

Really? Given the history of the Challenge are you seriously suggesting that an applicant simply claiming to be satisfied with his/her own testing protocol is as likely to be as worthy and genuine as one who has managed to convince the media sufficient to secure a presence?

It is for the claimant to be both satisfied with the elements of the controlled test, and his/her ability to pass that test in pre-test trials, that is important, to overcome the spurious, IMHO. As I said, proof of pre-testing, which would essentially confirm the applicant's own confidence to perform within the constraints of the MDC, say along with independently verified results, should be mandatory.

So, IYHO, you disagree with the MDC process, right?

 

[Explorer]

It's a matter of fact. One only needs to look at the history of the Challenge to see that. Are you intent on disagreeing with everything I write just for the sake of it, or do you have a comprehension issue?

Don't be so rude!

Really? Given the history of the Challenge are you seriously suggesting that an applicant simply claiming to be satisfied with his/her own testing protocol is as likely to be as worthy and genuine as one who has managed to convince the media sufficient to secure a presence?

But it wouldn't be the applicant's own testing protocol. It would be the one agreed by the MDC. I think, like many others, that the media are often just as gullible as the next person. Why should you assume that journalists are always good and seasoned skeptics?


So, IYHO, you disagree with the MDC process, right?[/QUOTE]

No, I was simply responding to Pixel's comment as to how it could be improved. It may not improve it, but I responded with my immediate thoughts.

 

[Explorer]

I think it's the academic affadavit rather than the media presence that's supposed to provide the safeguard you're requesting.

From the FAQ:

Yes, the affadavit, seems to be what I am saying. So that proviso is already is in place then, and that can be applied to my "independent verification "of the pre-test results, which may or may not provide genuine confidence in the applicant's mindset.

 

[Southwind17]

Don't be so rude!

Rude? It was a genuine enquiry.

But it wouldn't be the applicant's own testing protocol. It would be the one agreed by the MDC. I think, like many others, that the media are often just as gullible as the next person. Why should you assume that journalists are always good and seasoned skeptics?

I see. So when you wrote:

Very little more, except make it a condition of the MDC that proof of pre-testing to the applicants satisfaction, must be submiited on the agreed test method, before an application can be accepted. If that eliminates all claimants, then so be it! [emboldening added]

... you mean:

1. applicant applies to JREF;
2. applicant agrees a testing protocol with JREF;
3. applicant successfully conducts agreed test to his/her own satisfaction;
4. applicant re-applies to JREF.

Can you see why this might not be the most sensible approach, and why the JREF introduced the media presence and afidavit prerequisite?

As for media presence, sure, they can be gullible, but having to convince the media to attend would certainly filter out most of the quacks.

No, I was simply responding to Pixel's comment as to how it could be improved. It may not improve it, but I responded with my immediate thoughts.

'Immediate thoughts'. I see. Perhaps a little reflection, in future?

 

[Cuddles]

But it wouldn't be the applicant's own testing protocol. It would be the one agreed by the MDC.

No it wouldn't. A testing protocol is only agreed for the MDC after a lengthy discussion between the JREF and the applicant, often going on for several months or even years. The JREF is not going to go through all that with someone who hasn't even been accepted as an applicant yet. The whole point of setting up some hoops for people to jump through is to weed out the ones who aren't serious before the JREF has to waste time dealing with them. So obviously any pre-application test cannot possibly be approved by the JREF for the MDC, since that would defeat the entire point of having it in the first place.

I think, like many others, that the media are often just as gullible as the next person. Why should you assume that journalists are always good and seasoned skeptics?

No-one is assuming any such thing. Yes, the media are often as gullible as the next person. In fact, they're often deliberately even more so since they'll happily report on things they think people will read regardless of whether they believe it or not. If you've read any background at all, you will surely have noticed that many applicants are obviously insane, trying a con, or simply expect someone else to do all the work for them. The point of requiring a media presence is not to have applicants undergo a thorough skeptical analysis, it is simply to determine that the applicant is capable of convincing anyone at all, and is actually willing to put any effort into doing so.

Plus there is, of course, another very good reason. As has been explained many times before here, the JREF is not a scientific research centre. The challenge is not an attempt to find out if magic exists. It's a PR stunt by people who don't believe magic exists and are calling out believers by telling them to put up or shut up. Then when no-one is actually able to put up, they can just point at the challenge and ask how come they still have a million dollars.

The point is, the MDC is not supposed to be the place for every random believer to come and have a shot at winning. It's a tool that was introduced specifically to call out big names. Do you think anyone actually cares if some random person no-one's ever heard of fails to do something no-one ever believed they could do in the first place? Of course not. So why would the JREF want to waste their time and resources on that kind of test? By requiring some kind of media presence, the JREF tries to ensure that people who get tested are people whose failure might actually have some impact in convincing others that their claimed magic powers aren't actually real.

 

[Explorer]

[*]applicant applies to JREF;
[*]applicant agrees a testing protocol with JREF;
[*]applicant successfully conducts agreed test to his/her own satisfaction;
[*]applicant re-applies to JREF.
[/LIST]
Can you see why this might not be the most sensible approach, and why the JREF introduced the media presence and afidavit prerequisite?

As for media presence, sure, they can be gullible, but having to convince the media to attend would certainly filter out most of the quacks.


'Immediate thoughts'. I see. Perhaps a little reflection, in future?

DD for his intial experiments was conducting protocol already dictated by the MDC, so the first three items in your list above apply to him. He has only conducted one experiment at stage three, and he has said on this board that he will continue with further experiments at this stage. As for the fourth item, DD will not have to re-apply, as he already has in order to get to stage three. However, whether or not he now goes through with the actual MDC final test, which is the true stage four, remains to be seen.

As others have said above, it is rare for claimants to adhere to the MDC pre-tests, and DD is an exception. I am merely saying that this should not be an exception, but the rule,
for all.

Incidently, and you may have missed it in a follow up post to Pixel, I have already accepted that the affadavit is essentially what I was suggesting to him, reflecting the verification of the pre-test results.

I don't believe that quacks would be put off by media presence, after all they, as you constantly keep reminding me, totally believe in their abilities anyway. In Richard Dawkins's TV programme, all dowser recruits, seemed quite happy to fail in front of the camera.

 

[zooterkin]

The Richard Dawkins dowser testing in his last TV series is a good example of that, when at a paranormal fair, he recruited several dowsers ad hoc, and about half a dozen or so, agreed to a test, where they had to find water under several buckets. It seemed to me, that none of them had actually practiced the elements of the test before, and that their confidence was misplaced. They all failed the test.

In the interests of accuracy, it was Richard Dawkins' TV programme, but it was Chris French who had arranged the tests, which happened to fit in with the programme. I don't know how the dowsers were recruited. The dowsers all tried the test while knowing where the water was, and were confident they were detecting the water under the buckets.

(I believe I linked to the youtube video earlier in the thread, and we just happened to have Chris French speaking at our local SITP, where he showed that video and gave some of the background.)


ETA:

 

[zooterkin]

DD for his intial experiments was conducting protocol already dictated by the MDC,

In what way was it dictated?

I don't believe that quacks would be put off by media presence, after all they, as you constantly keep reminding me, totally believe in their abilities anyway. In Richard Dawkins's TV programme, all dowser recruits, seemed quite happy to fail in front of the camera.

I think you may be using the word 'quack' differently than I do, at least. I wouldn't use it for dowsers, for example, who generally do seem to believe that they can do what they claim. People who make significant amounts of money from claimed paranormal ability, mediums for example, may have started off believing they are psychic, but once it becomes a business I find it hard believe that they haven't realised they are making it up most of the time.

 

[Southwind17]

DD for his intial experiments was conducting protocol already dictated by the MDC, so the first three items in your list above apply to him.

I believe Cuddles has corrected you on this.

 

[Explorer]

In the interests of accuracy, it was Richard Dawkins' TV programme, but it was Chris French who had arranged the tests, which happened to fit in with the programme. I don't know how the dowsers were recruited. The dowsers all tried the test while knowing where the water was, and were confident they were detecting the water under the buckets.

(I believe I linked to the youtube video earlier in the thread, and we just happened to have Chris French speaking at our local SITP, where he showed that video and gave some of the background.)


ETA:

Interesting that you have received additional feedback that was not in the programme.

I ask why were the dowsers not given a chance to practice NOT KNOWING where the water was placed? Perhaps the making of that element of the programme would have had to have been abandoned, if they had all had walked away with their heads drooping.

It is surely fundamental that dowsers should only be participating in a test when any confidence they have built up, is based on successful pre-test trials where they don't know where the target was originally positioned.