Challenge applications

[Explorer]

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.

Forgive me, but I just don't get this at all. I admit that I am not familiar with all the detail of the MDC procedure, but I am astounded, if what you say is true, that applicants are not going to get the opportunity of testing the elements of the final MDC test beforehand.


This surely is vital, and a very simple precaution in helping with the elimination of time wasters and the casual applicant, from the challenge.

What is the point of a potential applicant claiming whatever paranormal abilities he or she has, and testing any methodology that is not going to be repeated in the final MDC test? So the affadavit will only confirm other tests not necessarily similar or as stringent as the final MDC test. Have I got this right now?

Your statement above "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", makes no rational sense to me at all, unless of course, it is in the context of prejudging applicant failure.

If it takes months, perhaps years as you suggest, to agree the final MDC test, I just cannot understand why there is no insistence in the protocol that the final methodology is pre-tested by the applicant. If I was on the JREF team, and could not get an agreed test from an approved applicant over a reasonable period of time, I would cancel their application. Years seems very unreasonable, and indicates serious doubt and inflexibility.

 

[zooterkin]

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

Well, there's nothing sinister about it. Chris French would be quite happy to tell you more about it, I'm sure.

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.

I don't think anyone would have stopped them, and they'd have had ample opportunity before the test to have tried it themselves if they'd felt so inclined. But it would rather have defeated the point of the test (which was not, as I understand it, being done for the TV programme, but as a test in its own right), which was being done to see whether there really was any truth to the dowsers' own claims, or if the ideomotor effect was at work.

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.

Why? If what you're testing is the difference in their performance between when they know where the object is and when they don't, if you then run a pre-test on the second part, and they all fail, you won't have a test left.

 

[zooterkin]

Forgive me, but I just don't get this at all. I admit that I am not familiar with all the detail of the MDC procedure, but I am astounded, if what you say is true, that applicants are not going to get the opportunity of testing the elements of the final MDC test beforehand.

Since the protocol is agreed between the JREF and the applicant before the test, there is nothing preventing the applicant from testing under those conditions.

 

[Pixel42]

Since the protocol is agreed between the JREF and the applicant before the test, there is nothing preventing the applicant from testing under those conditions.

Exactly, and as I said they are urged to do so by JREF and by members of this forum if they post here. If they refuse to do so, there's really nothing more that can be done.

 

[Explorer]

Well, there's nothing sinister about it. Chris French would be quite happy to tell you more about it, I'm sure.

There seems to be a misunderstanding generally on this thread by others about my motives for posting on this thread. I have no personal agenda other than giving any claimants and the testers, the best test possible. The "nothing sinister" comment seems to me to indicate that you believe that I do have some other agenda. Let me assure you that this is not the case, and that "nothing sinister" was taken from your extra-programme feedback that you gave me. On the contrary, it was a valuable comment, that I appreciated

I don't think anyone would have stopped them, and they'd have had ample opportunity before the test to have tried it themselves if they'd felt so inclined. But it would rather have defeated the point of the test (which was not, as I understand it, being done for the TV programme, but as a test in its own right), which was being done to see whether there really was any truth to the dowsers' own claims, or if the ideomotor effect was at work.

If I had been a test designer/controller, one of the first questions I would have asked the dowsers would have been "Have you a successful record of detecting still water in plastic bottles under buckets?" If the answer was "No, but I am willing to give it a go, as I am confident in my dowsing abilities generally". My second question would have been "Do you want to try the test on your own, informally beforehand, not in front of the cameras, before going ahead with the televised formal tests? If their answer had been "No, I have no need to do so". I would have eliminated them from the formal test. Why, because, I would be only interested in testing dowsers that have had experience with this particular test method, and had a degree of confidence that they could subsequently demonstrate that success in the formal mode.

Why? If what you're testing is the difference in their performance between when they know where the object is and when they don't, if you then run a pre-test on the second part, and they all fail, you won't have a test left.

Oh but you will! The probability that dowsing is merely an ideometer effect, or instinct using one's unconscious, as Soundwind suggested above, is high. There is also a high probability that dowsers in the field are using confirmation bias when publishing their successes, and ignoring their failures. However, as we are making assumptions based on number of different possibilities (including fraud and hoaxes, of course) there is a responsibility for test designers, and their test designs, not only to design elements in the test that eliminate these possibilities, but also to give the claimant the best chance to prove the claim. The "best" chance, IMHO, is the one where the claimant has tested the test and remains confident.

I am not suggesting that the claimant pre-tests at the MDC test site, with MDC present, but that they replicate as far as they can the final agreed test methodology in the privacy of their own environment. Following this exercise, either their confidence will be boosted, or perhaps much more likely, shattered, and they will either go away for good, or go ahead with the test. If they then fail the final test at the MDC site, then their only recourse would be to say that the glare of publicity and the tension of the moment, caused them to fail, not the test method itself, the latter as DD is claiming after his first field experiment.

 

[Explorer]

Exactly, and as I said they are urged to do so by JREF and by members of this forum if they post here. If they refuse to do so, there's really nothing more that can be done.

I simply would not accept them for the MDC.

 

[realpaladin]

I simply would not accept them for the MDC.

Some agreed upon testing may become prohibitively expensive; you would get people saying the MDC could not be won because you would need to invest so much.

Look at DD, it cost him quite some effort just setting up this trial.

As it is now, people are 'urged' to do that testing, and they will be pointed out that this possibility existed before they are running the MDC, but for some, it is not an option.

 

[Old man]

If I had been a test designer/controller, one of the first questions I would have asked the dowsers would have been "Have you a successful record of detecting still water in plastic bottles under buckets?" If the answer was "No, but I am willing to give it a go, as I am confident in my dowsing abilities generally". My second question would have been "Do you want to try the test on your own, informally beforehand, not in front of the cameras, before going ahead with the televised formal tests? If their answer had been "No, I have no need to do so". I would have eliminated them from the formal test. Why, because, I would be only interested in testing dowsers that have had experience with this particular test method, and had a degree of confidence that they could subsequently demonstrate that success in the formal mode.

The "best" chance, IMHO, is the one where the claimant has tested the test and remains confident.

I simply would not accept them for the MDC.

You're presuming dowsing works.

In the real world, if a dowser 'pretests' (controlling for ideomotor and subconscious cueing) he will fail, and thus not apply.

You say you'd refuse to test if he doesn't do the above.

Why have the challenge at all, in that case?

 

[Southwind17]

The probability that dowsing is merely an ideometer effect, or instinct using one's unconscious, as Soundwind suggested above, is high.

For the record I suggested no such thing. I merely commented on the suggestion.

There is also a high probability that dowsers in the field are using confirmation bias when publishing their successes, and ignoring their failures. However, as we are making assumptions based on number of different possibilities (including fraud and hoaxes, of course) there is a responsibility for test designers, and their test designs, not only to design elements in the test that eliminate these possibilities, but also to give the claimant the best chance to prove the claim. The "best" chance, IMHO, is the one where the claimant has tested the test and remains confident.

I'm not sure 'best chance' is an appropriate choice of words in relation to scientific testing. A properly formulated scientific test will eliminate both favour and chance. The claimant will either pass or fail the test, and the outcome will be conclusive.

If they then fail the final test at the MDC site, then their only recourse would be to say that the glare of publicity and the tension of the moment, caused them to fail, not the test method itself, the latter as DD is claiming after his first field experiment.

The 'glare of publicity' and 'tension of the moment' are both inevitable intrisic parts of the testing protocol; a protocol that the claimant will willingly have agreed as appropriate and conclusive. Claimants cannot be afforded the latitude to say: "yeah but ...; no but ..." and offer excuses for why they failed the test (well nobody can stop that, but we can all refuse to listen).

 

[Explorer]

You're presuming dowsing works.

In the real world, if a dowser 'pretests' (controlling for ideomotor and subconscious cueing) he will fail, and thus not apply.

You say you'd refuse to test if he doesn't do the above.

Why have the challenge at all, in that case?

...and you are presuming it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with either positions as long as the claims are tested in a mutally acceptable manner.

Why have the challenge at all? It seems in the JREF case, to be soley for reasons of debunking purposes. Which is OK as far as that goes, and as has been said above, JREF is not a scientific research centre, and therefore by its own admission, the MDC, in the scientific sense, has little value for rational enquiry. I just wish it had.

 

[zooterkin]

...and you are presuming it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with either positions as long as the claims are tested in a mutally acceptable manner.

Why have the challenge at all? It seems in the JREF case, to be soley for reasons of debunking purposes. Which is OK as far as that goes, and as has been said above, JREF is not a scientific research centre, and therefore by its own admission, the MDC, in the scientific sense, has little value for rational enquiry. I just wish it had.

You don't think it's rational to debunk nonsense?

 

[Southwind17]

...and you are presuming it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with either positions as long as the claims are tested in a mutally acceptable manner.

You're missing Old man's point. Your proposed testing protocol presupposes that eligible applicants have had some 'success'.

Why have the challenge at all? It seems in the JREF case, to be soley for reasons of debunking purposes. Which is OK as far as that goes, and as has been said above, JREF is not a scientific research centre, and therefore by its own admission, the MDC, in the scientific sense, has little value for rational enquiry. I just wish it had.

That's a little like saying: "I wish my car had wings and a jet engine". If it had, it would be an aeroplane. As it happens, it was designed just to be a car. If you want an aeroplane go buy an aeroplane (if you can afford one!).

 

[Explorer]

For the record I suggested no such thing. I merely commented on the suggestion.

If you say so. I don't really care either way.

I'm not sure 'best chance' is an appropriate choice of words in relation to scientific testing. A properly formulated scientific test will eliminate both favour and chance. The claimant will either pass or fail the test, and the outcome will be conclusive.

The best chance is a scientific test, without pre-judgement, I fully agree. However, I have been corrected by being told that JREF is not a scientific research centre, and therefore does not carry out formal and academically valid testing

The 'glare of publicity' and 'tension of the moment' are both inevitable intrisic parts of the testing protocol; a protocol that the claimant will willingly have agreed as appropriate and conclusive. Claimants cannot be afforded the latitude to say: "yeah but ...; no but ..." and offer excuses for why they failed the test (well nobody can stop that, but we can all refuse to listen).

Yes, you are saying what I am saying, except that the "yes but no but" scenario should be nipped in the bud a lot earlier than allowing it to go on for "months, even years", as has been described above to me.

 

[realpaladin]

...and you are presuming it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with either positions as long as the claims are tested in a mutally acceptable manner.

Why have the challenge at all? It seems in the JREF case, to be soley for reasons of debunking purposes. Which is OK as far as that goes, and as has been said above, JREF is not a scientific research centre, and therefore by its own admission, the MDC, in the scientific sense, has little value for rational enquiry. I just wish it had.

Since when can scientific research only be done by scientific institutions?

Science is a methodology, not a hierarchy, not an institution, not a belief system.

Anyone can do science.

Science revolves around falsifiability and reproducability.

I think both of these conditions are adequately met by having the MDC set up as open as it is, with the combined rationality of the JREF and this forum.

Just because Alexander Fleming made the discovery of Penicillin by accident does not mean that his discovery was not of scientific importance.

 

[Explorer]

You don't think it's rational to debunk nonsense?

It is clearly nonsense when it has been demonstrated to be nonsense, when the claimant has not been able to prove with compelling evidence, its valdity.

Surely that is not a new statement on here?

 

[Explorer]

Since when can scientific research only be done by scientific institutions?

Science is a methodology, not a hierarchy, not an institution, not a belief system.

Anyone can do science.

Science revolves around falsifiability and reproducability.

I think both of these conditions are adequately met by having the MDC set up as open as it is, with the combined rationality of the JREF and this forum.

Just because Alexander Fleming made the discovery of Penicillin by accident does not mean that his discovery was not of scientific importance.

Fine, but you had better address that point to the poster who was arguing differently. It wasn't my statement, I was only repeating what the poster wanted me to be the real raison detre of JREF. I was quite disappointed when I read it, but he cannot have both ways.

 

[realpaladin]

It is clearly nonsense when it has been demonstrated to be nonsense, when the claimant has not been able to prove with compelling evidence, its valdity.

Surely that is not a new statement on here?

Highlighting mine.

That sentence is not correct. It should be: It has clearly been demonstrated to be nonsense when it has been demonstrated to be nonsense.

It can be nonsense without any demonstration at all before that.

 

[realpaladin]

Fine, but you had better address that point to the poster who was arguing differently. It wasn't my statement, I was only repeating what the poster wanted me to be the real raison detre of JREF. I was quite disappointed when I read it, but he cannot have both ways.

That does not fly. That is just like saying: you better address that point to the writers of the Old Testament, not the preacher.

You repeat it, you defend it.

 

[Explorer]

Highlighting mine.

That sentence is not correct. It should be: It has clearly been demonstrated to be nonsense when it has been demonstrated to be nonsense.

It can be nonsense without any demonstration at all before that.

How?

 

[Explorer]

That does not fly. That is just like saying: you better address that point to the writers of the Old Testament, not the preacher.

You repeat it, you defend it.

No, the writer is still alive, at least I would hope so, as he was up to this morning.

I repeated it, because I am getting conflicting messages from posters who supposedly are unified against my postings.