• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Randi lie?

HenDralux

Scholar
H
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Messages
84
I am posting this due to a debate going on in a forum related to and often attended by Colin Fry, the UK medium.

One particular poster, after asking to take a look at the protocol for Sylvia Browne's testing, argued that Randi has told two, blatant, outright lies.

The alleged lies in question, within the protocol as stated on this page: http://www.randi.org/jr/090701.html

1. "But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds — which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! — eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done."

The poster in question states this as a blatant lie, questioning the 'normality' of the odds.

2. "I point out to you, that the person chosen to have the reading would be a believer in Sylvia's powers, and would therefore be expected to be sympathetic to her success."

The poster in question states this as a blatant lie. I could quote her direct reason, but I'm not sure if this is in breach of forum protocol..and I'm not exactly sure how to paraphrase it as I don't understand the poster's reason myself.


I'm simply asking for comments and opinions regarding these alleged 'lies'...and how they could be argued to be blatant mistruths with the full knowledge that they are so.

Maybe the poster in question may come on here to clarify the the accusations.

Regards.
 
HenDralux said:
1. "But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds — which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! — eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done."

The poster in question states this as a blatant lie, questioning the 'normality' of the odds.[/b]
Click to expand...
Well, the probabilities are non trivial on this one, perhaps someone with a little more recent exposure to them could go through. The problem is, without knowing what the initial score is, the odds of the subsequent scores being under that is unknown.

I'd have to dig out a textbook and think about this one a while, so I'll be lazy and see if anyone else can answer. :)

2. "I point out to you, that the person chosen to have the reading would be a believer in Sylvia's powers, and would therefore be expected to be sympathetic to her success."

The poster in question states this as a blatant lie. I could quote her direct reason, but I'm not sure if this is in breach of forum protocol..and I'm not exactly sure how to paraphrase it as I don't understand the poster's reason myself.
Click to expand...
Well, from the page referenced:
I suggest that we advertise — via the Internet — perhaps even on Larry's web page, if that would be possible, Larry — for ten persons who would be willing to be subjects for this test, done via telephone. Each one would have to attest in writing that (a) they believe in your powers, Sylvia, (b) that they believe you can do a genuine spiritual reading, and (c) that they've had a personal loss of a loved one within the last year.
Click to expand...
Unless the people lie, seems pretty clear they would be believers in Sylvia. Perhaps he is suggesting that the sitters can't be trusted?

Regardless, Sylvia agreed on national television to do the test. If she objects to the conditions she should bring that up, not stonewall, hide, and come up with lame excuses.
 
Sure the test can be messed up to many people give high ratings but:

a) silvia would know that so would avoid genrealities

b)silvia agreed to the test protocol end of debate.

In practice silvia's best chance of passing the test would involve making one guess that would fit about 10% of the population.
 
"b)silvia agreed to the test protocol end of debate"


The argument has been put forward that Sylvia has been 'a bit dim' in agreeing to such a protocol..alleging that the protocol itself is misleading and flawed - and that other, 'smarter' mediums, would never have agreed to it.

Basically, it has been said, she was stupid to agree to it because of its inherent flaws.

Any comments?
 
HenDralux said:
"b)silvia agreed to the test protocol end of debate"


The argument has been put forward that Sylvia has been 'a bit dim' in agreeing to such a protocol..alleging that the protocol itself is misleading and flawed - and that other, 'smarter' mediums, would never have agreed to it.

Basically, it has been said, she was stupid to agree to it because of its inherent flaws.

Any comments?
Click to expand...

Smater mediums are free to come up with better designed protocols if they want. Silvia was happy with that once. There have been orer claimants who have gone for high rather than low odds options and I she reaaly can do what she claims it makes no difference.
 
For myself, I don't accuse Randi of lying about these, but I -do- criticize both of them on different grounds.

First, I consider including the statement that raters will be believers in Sylvia's powers to be a bit of misdirection. In a well designed test, its irrelevant whether they are believers or skeptics.

Second, Randi said he'd get the raters from LK's website while on LKL. Later, here (somewhere in a Commentary--sorry to those of you who don't believe me, but perhaps someone will find it) he said that enough people had contacted him (implying those reading the JREF website) that he didn't need any more volunteers. So...I'm not sure how siincere he is in using LK as the middle man in selecting the 10. I've never heard him mention it since.
 
Hendralux,

Do you have a link to that forum? I would find it refreshing to see some other detailed critiques of the Sylvia Challenge.

(And I'd love to see some documentation from Randi of how he gets the "50:1 odds"...)
 
Re: Re: Did Randi lie?

Aoidoi said:
Well, the probabilities are non trivial on this one, perhaps someone with a little more recent exposure to them could go through. The problem is, without knowing what the initial score is, the odds of the subsequent scores being under that is unknown.
Click to expand...

The probabilistics are nontrivial, and I doubt it's a lie, but it isn't possible to verify the analysis given the provided information.

Forget the actual scores for a minute and assume that they're just a means for the volunteers to order the readings from best to worst. This seems to be reasonable, the volunteers know that there is only supposed to be one match. If nothing else, I'm sure they'll google for it. The "eight must be less" rule is equivalent to saying that the matched reading is either a volunteer's top choice or second top choice. The probability of getting this from random selection on one trial is 0.2.

You can calculate this the easy way. The volunteer has a 1/10 chance of picking the right one on the first go, and a 9/10 * 1/9 chance of picking the right one on the second go.

Or you can do it the hard way. There are 10!, or 3628800 total possible permutations. There are 9! or 362880 possible permutations with the match in the top slot and the same number with the match in the second slot.

Therefore, the probablity that a supposition that the hit was due to something other than random ordering is correct, for one trial, is 0.8.

But there are ten of these trials. Now's where it gets hairy. What exactly is Sylvia's claim? I couldn't find this clearly stated on the web page, nor could I find how many of these trials she has to get right. Assuming a pro-Sylvia outcome, depending on the nature of the claim and the means used to decide upon a pro-Sylvia outcome, the odds range between about 1 in 9 to 1 in 9.8 million. These are the endpoints for the simple cases of 0.2^10 and 1/(0.8^10). The others require hairy combinatorics.

Certainly 1 in 50 is within this range, and there are a lot of situations that cluster around 1 in 50, but I would have to know the details first.

Edited to change "statistics" to "probabilistics." The two are somewhat related but are sort of backward with respect to each other. Statistics have too much approximation in them to be much use around the extremes.
 
Clancie said:
First, I consider including the statement that raters will be believers in Sylvia's powers to be a bit of misdirection. In a well designed test, its irrelevant whether they are believers or skeptics.
Click to expand...

I don't see this as a drawback. It's a way of keeping her from harping about "the skeptic effect" if she loses the test, this idea being that skeptics are really powerful psychics who not only nullify psychic power but push it in the opposite direction.
 
Clancie said:

First, I consider including the statement that raters will be believers in Sylvia's powers to be a bit of misdirection. In a well designed test, its irrelevant whether they are believers or skeptics.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it should be irrelevant, I'm sure that if the test didn't involve 'believers' that many of Sylvia's followers would either claim "These were skeptics who wanted to discredit Sylvia by deliberately making mistakes", or "Their negative energy interfered with Sylvia's powers". By making sure only believers were tested, they're removing one area that Sylvia's people may use to discredit the test.

Clancie said:
Second, Randi said he'd get the raters from LK's website while on LKL. Later, here he said that enough people had contacted him (implying those reading the JREF website) that he didn't need any more volunteers. So...I'm not sure how siincere he is in using LK as the middle man in selecting the 10. I've never heard him mention it since.
Click to expand...

It was a while ago, but I think he mentioned the web site address while on Larry King. If someone was a believer and wanted to participate they could use the web site as a way to get in touch, even if they were not regular readers.
 
Well, if they're supposed to be believers in Sylvia's abilities (:rolleyes: ), then why let Randi pick them?

And, epepke,

Posted by epepke

You can calculate this the easy way. The volunteer has a 1/10 chance of picking the right one on the first go, and a 9/10 * 1/9 chance of picking the right one on the second go.
Click to expand...

Um, no. There's no "right one" for the raters to pick, epepke. The (one) person who was read already knows which one is his/her reading.

The nine others weren't ever read at all--and they know that as well. All they have to do is give a subjective rating for how Sylvia's reading for someone else would apply to them on a scale of 1-10. On that basis, her mediumship will be rated.

So...what about those 50:1 odds that Randi descirbes her needing to beat with this test? :eek: I want to know how he decided on that.
Posted by segnosaur

It was a while ago, but I think he mentioned the web site address while on Larry King. If someone was a believer and wanted to participate they could use the web site as a way to get in touch, even if they were not regular readers.
Click to expand...

Yes, well....that doesn't change the fact that on LKL he asked Larry King to find the raters through his website and LK agreed. The only other thing I've read about it since seems like Randi was going to do the selection from people who contacted Randi, most likely through this board, or people he found some other way that hasn't yet been clearly spelled out.).

Hendralux,

Thanks you.
 
Clancie said:
Um, no. There's no "right one" for the raters to pick, epepke.
Click to expand...

This is true. It's an unquantifiable bit, but it should push the outcome in Sylvia's favor, assuming that the volunteers have an interest in showing Sylvia to be right. As a result, the calculable odds would be upper bounds. Say in the 9 to 1 case, if half of the time a volunteer lied to support Sylvia, it would be 4.5 to 1. Both are still smaller than 50 to 1.

Also, a higher personal score on the reading for another person would indicate, effectively, that the reading was more accurate. The sop that only Sylvia-believers should be members at least ensures that false positives (for Sylvia) should outweigh false negatives (for Sylvia).

Yes, it's a sloppy test. But all of the slop is in favor of Sylvia. If anything, it's extremely generous and overfair to Sylvia. As stated, it might be worth it for someone who does not claim psychic abilities to pay quite a few tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege. On the other hand, it might not be.

However, I've shown that even if the slop is eliminated, given the information provided, the odds are better than 50 to 1 against. Namely, about 9 to 1 against. Since the slop is in Sylvia's favor, this could be 8 to 1 against, or 7 to 1 against, but it ain't gonna be 10 to 1 against, capisce?

So there's still no way of justifying, using the information given, the outrage of requiring that eight scores be lower as a lie.
 
Posted by epepke

However, I've shown that even if the slop is eliminated, given the information provided, the odds are better than 50 to 1 against. Namely, about 9 to 1 against. Since the slop is in Sylvia's favor, this could be 8 to 1 against, or 7 to 1 against, but it ain't gonna be 10 to 1 against, capisce?
Click to expand...

Frankly, no.
 
I have stated this before in another thread. Quite frankly, there is not protocal for a test of Sylvia. Everyone seems to be hung up on a live TV challenge between the two obviously concieved to bait Sylvia into accepting. A wise PR move on Randi's part, and a foolish one on Sylvia's. No protocal exists because she has not filled out an application. If she ever does, and she won't, and she shouldn't, THEN they will discuss the conditions of the testing. A verbal exchange means nothing.

JPK
 
"Have you asked him to explain and justify his claimed 1000-1 "normal" odds ? (I did not see any reference at all to that.)

Quote from the poster who I mentioned in the original post.
Who, infact, is a male...I referred to as a female. Apologies. ;)


Could Randi explain and justify this?
 
JPK,

Randi developed a detailed testing protocol for Sylvia and asked if she would accept it. She agreed (I would assume that verbal agreements -do- count, unless something has been stipulated by Randi elsewhere).

He talks and writes as if she's agreed to this specific test (probably because, well,...she has). But regardless of her agreement to it or not...her stupidity or not...her ever passing it or not...or whether she even ever takes it or not....all these are completely irrelevant to the points I am making about how Randi thinks about paranormal testing and the Challenge...and how problems with bias, false assumptions, etc. are demonstrated by what he's asked Sylvia to agree to do to see if she can (paraphrasing) "show her powers".
 
epepke said:


It's an unquantifiable bit, but it should push the outcome in Sylvia's favor, assuming that the volunteers have an interest in showing Sylvia to be right. As a result, the calculable odds would be upper bounds. Say in the 9 to 1 case, if half of the time a volunteer lied to support Sylvia, it would be 4.5 to 1. Both are still smaller than 50 to 1.

Click to expand...


Could you explain this comment please, epepke, since you seem to be well up in this kind of stuff, because the WHOLE ISSUE is whether belief in SB's "talents" by the person receiving the reading would push the result in her favour.

As I understand it, all participants must believe in her talents.
One gets the reading.
The reading is then presented to the other 9 on the basis that it is THEIRS. (They don't know whether it is or not.)

Randi suggests that because the person who was read is a believer in SB's talents, this pushes the result in her favour.

But if the other 9 are equal believers in her talents (a condition for participating) then they too would be trying equally to match the reading to their own circumstances, and the result would be no bias at all, either for or against SB.

(And to save Hendralux the bother of clumsy references in the future, it was I who raised this issue on the Colin Fry Sixth Sense forum.)
 
May I ask, if Sylvia can contact the dead - as say, I can prove I could get over a 50 break in snooker.......why all the kerfuffle and nitpicking over odds...numbers...etc.

Obviously I understand the protocol has to be fair, but from what I can see, Randi seems to be trying his best to make it as fair as possible, so Sylvia actually decides to take the test.

If someone has a paranormal gift...why all the..what appears to me....wriggling about when discussing protocols et al?


I realise I'll be accused of simplifying the whole deal..but man..sometimes, ....if people's claims are 100% real..just get on with it and DO IT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom