Commentary about 2/23 commentary

[T'ai Chi]

Some thoughts about the 2/23 commentary

1)

Interestingly, Uri Geller has done this stunt many times, always choosing the star symbol, as far back as 1997 when he appeared on “Beyond Belief” in the UK.

Can anybody find Geller doing this without choosing the star symbol?

2)
Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?

3)

First, the dowsers themselves – not we – insisted that the results of all their attempts should be combined;

It is not up to the subjects to willynilly decide how the results are combined. It is up to the science and the specifics of the experimental design parameters. Was the choice to combine based on sound statistics, or to combine just because the dowsers wanted to?

4)

- insisted that the results of all their attempts should be combined;

and

They failed spectacularly, obtaining results that almost exactly mirrored the Sydney tests in reverse, so that the overall testing procedures showed null results.

Both excerpts seem to indicate that some type of meta-analysis was done, that they were similar enough to combine based on some inclusion criteria. Can such a thing be done for all the dowsing tests, or the other statistically-based preliminary tests? The results would certainly be interesting.

5)

Also, I see no reference here to the “sensible professor of engineering” who performed “a successful investigative test” of dowsing, nor are his results quoted. We’d very much like to contact him, so that his tests could be repeated and confirmed.

See point 2) on lack of references.

6)

BULL****! And you know it! You're either an idiot or a madman – that's not yet decided.

and

And get a load of the expression on the swami’s face. Obviously not a man to be trifled with. He could fry an egg just by looking at it...

and

But it appears that Master-of-Science Joan Ocean is probably genuinely deluded, judging from this note.

From these few excerpts from this commentary alone, if one was a potential applicant, you can see why they might not take the challenge seriously.

I don't think he 'gets' it. I believe even if his stance is 100% scientifically correct, he still won't get his point across to people who are not critical thinkers by the 'mean' act. It will probably turn them off instantly, as it probably turns off already critical thinkers who find the mean act worthless.

 

[Reno]

It will probably turn them off instantly, as it probably turns off already critical thinkers who find the mean act worthless.

Woo: Randi is an old meanie. I'll teach him a lesson, I won't take his million dollars. Ha! That'll show 'im.

 

[Darat]

Some thoughts about the 2/23 commentary


...snip....

Questions about details are best addressed to the author - his email address is randi@randi.org.

 

[T'ai Chi]

(snip)

Yeah, that's true. But I know how much the readers of this forum are interested in discussing things.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, that's true. But I know how much the readers of this forum are interested in discussing things.

True - let us know if you get a response from Randi, I suspect that would be interesting for many Members here.

 

[T'ai Chi]

True - let us know if you get a response from Randi,

I'm not interesting in letting "us" know who I get responses from. I am interested in discussing the commentary, as stated.

 

[Darat]

I'm not interesting in letting "us" know who I get responses from. I am interested in discussing the commentary, as stated.

("us" = "readers of this forum")

If you aren't interested in obtaining answers to your various questions fair enough.

 

[Lonewulf]

Darat, my mom has a cat that looks JUST like that. With the "Go away" expression and everything.

And T'ai Chi:

From these few excerpts from this commentary alone, if one was a potential applicant, you can see why they might not take the challenge seriously.

I find it difficult to take the e-mail that was sent to Randi seriously myself.

Personally, if a moron came up to me and started spouting moron at me, I see no reason why I must automatically treat that person with respect.

But then, I don't work with those stupid "customer service" rules, where you treat everyone with respect, even those that truly and fully never deserve it (which results in health problems for those that work customer service, I might add!)

 

[Horatius]

I'm not interesting in letting "us" know who I get responses from. I am interested in discussing the commentary, as stated.

Wouldn't that be part of discussing the commentary?

 

[H3LL]

Out of interest, I would be interested if TC can formulate a post without something being 'interesting' or 'interested'.

Personally, I've failed to be interested in anything TC has posted despite how interesting TC may find it. Interestingly enough.

If you're interested and you should see that I have made several interesting errors and directly contradicted some of my more interesting comments.

One day I'll try some interesting posts myself and beat TC's post count...With interest.

Interesting ETA: TC's fondness for 'interesting' things seems to be directly opposite to how much interest he has in finding anything out about them. Hmmm...Interesting.

Steve Davis...Eat your heart out.


.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you aren't interested in obtaining answers to your various questions fair enough.

Not emailing Randi and not reporting to "us" does not mean one is not interested.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I find it difficult to take the e-mail that was sent to Randi seriously myself.

I personally do too, however, if you're in charge of an organization that attempts to get people to take your challenge, and you claim to be rational, and unbiased and fair, it is somewhat odd IMO. It is quite different from a random moron spouting at you on the street.

I believe Girl6 offered to help out with 'image' stuff a while ago if my memory isn't failing me.

 

[Darat]

Not emailing Randi and not reporting to "us" [readers of this forum] does not mean one is not interested.

Yes it does when you ask questions that only Randi can provide the answer to.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Questions were not asked that "only", as you claim, Randi can answer. It is possible other people who are familar with such things can answer them, hence the appropriateness of posting.

The questions asked were:

-Can anybody find Geller doing this without choosing the star symbol?

-Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?

-Was the choice to combine based on sound statistics, or to combine just because the dowsers wanted to?

-Can such a thing (meta-analysis) be done for all the dowsing tests, or the other statistically-based preliminary tests?

 

[Darat]

Questions were not asked that "only", as you claim, Randi can answer. It is possible other people who are familar with such things can answer them, hence the appropriateness of posting.

...snip...

Interesting - you don't seem to understand the questions you asked, so it probably would be a waste of time you contacting Randi.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I asked the questions so I understand them just fine. So far, you've claimed that "only", Randi can provide the answers, which indicates that you don't understand them.

I guess only peoples' gurus can know all the answers.

 

[Darat]

I asked the questions so I understand them just fine.

Your subseqeunt responses in this thread show that you don't understand your own questions.

So far, you've claimed that "only", Randi can provide the answers, ...snip..

I have not made such a claim.

I guess only peoples' gurus can know all the answers.

I seriously doubt your (or anyone's) guru can know "all" the answers.

 

[Mercutio]

When I taught statistics, I had an informal questionnaire for students to fill out on the first day of class, just to generate data that we could then analyze over the next weeks of the course. Because I had so often heard the "people will choose 35 or 37" bit, I included one item that asked simply "pick an odd number between 0 and 100". It has been many years since I have taught stats, so it would take some effort to dig up the data, but for any given semester that would be as many as 120 stats students--conservatively, over 500 data points over the years, probably double that.

It was *not* my recollection that 35 or 37 were the modal numbers, but I am not near that computer now (it has not been turned on in years) to check. There were definite trends, though. (one was that, in every class but one, at least one student chose an even number.)

In previous discussions about this, I have been told that the patter that Randi describes is not the full bit that is done. People remember it as "choose an odd number between 1 and 100", but in fact more is given, such as "don't make it both the same number, because that is too easy--so, don't choose something like 99 or 77..." I actually remember being in the audience once when a performer did this trick (long before I had heard of Randi, or taught statistics), and I absolutely cannot recall what the precise instructions were--only that there was a half-minute or so of patter for a "pick a number" instruction that could have taken 3 seconds.

Whether Randi is intentionally simplifying the instructions (or representing the task as it is remembered by the audience instead of how it is presented by the performer), whether he is wrong, or whether my memory about the data points is wrong, it has not been my recollection that people choose 35 or 37 significantly more than some other numbers (although the distributions, if memory serves, were almost always skewed, with many more choices below 50 than above it, so 35 and 37 are much more likely than 65 or 67).

I offer to dig through my old data...for a reasonable fee.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

I offer to dig through my old data...for a reasonable fee.

Is a "please" a large enough fee? I think it would of interest to readers of this forum.

 

[fls]

Where are the studies that show people mostly pick the star, mostly pick 7, or 35, or 37, or don't pick repeated digits like 22 or 99, and that odd numbers are favored over even numbers?

I emailed Randi and asked for that information, but he did not include it in his reply (he replied to another question I asked in the same post). I am also curious about these studies - not because I doubt it; it does make sense - but I'd like to know the details and be able to provide it as a reference when discussing these things with others. I'm hoping maybe someone on the forum is familiar with the research and is able to provide citations, although I may have another go at with with google.

I don't think he 'gets' it. I believe even if his stance is 100% scientifically correct, he still won't get his point across to people who are not critical thinkers by the 'mean' act. It will probably turn them off instantly, as it probably turns off already critical thinkers who find the mean act worthless.

Perhaps Randi is like Ann Coulter - his role is not to convert the opposition and the undecided, but to strengthen the sense of community that comes from occasionally letting your hair down and unreservedly bashing "them".

Linda