Is Randi's challenge scientific?

[plindboe]

Have you tried asking her what ONE standard she would use to evaluate the following 3 claimants?
1) Claims to be able to detect buried water pipes by dousing with 100% accuaracy.
2) Claims to be able to diagnose medical conditions by looking at a person. Doesn't claim to detect every condition but claims she is never wrong about a condition she does detect.
3) Claims to be able to predict whether a roulette ball will land on red or black 60% of the time.

Then ask her to pick just one number for the number of trials that would be needed to test all three claims and one number for the success rate that would be considered "passing" for all three claims.

Ah, yes, I tried something similar yesteday. I wrote "explain to me how testing a person who claims he can survive without breathing and testing a person who claims he can communicate telepathically with animals can have the same standard." & "explain to me how testing a dowser and testing a person who claims he's God can have the same standard.". Of course, she changed tactics after that, and instead said that there should be the same standard for each ability.

 

[Zep]

Ah, yes, I tried something similar yesteday. I wrote "explain to me how testing a person who claims he can survive without breathing and testing a person who claims he can communicate telepathically with animals can have the same standard." & "explain to me how testing a dowser and testing a person who claims he's God can have the same standard.". Of course, she changed tactics after that, and instead said that there should be the same standard for each ability.

The obvious response now is that each and every JREF challenge applicant claims to have a unique ability, entirely different from everybody else in the world including all other applicants.

Ask her what she thinks Randi should do in that case?

 

[pgwenthold]

Of course, she changed tactics after that, and instead said that there should be the same standard for each ability.

To add to Zep's response, note that this is pretty much already the case. For example, Randi is certainly willing to give every dowser who claims to be able to detect water with 100% accuracy the exact same test. In fact, this is why dowsers are so commonly tested. They all make very similar claims, so protocols are easily created.

It's the clowns like Sylvia Browne who refuse to even state their abilities in the first place that cause problems.

 

[plindboe]

The obvious response now is that each and every JREF challenge applicant claims to have a unique ability, entirely different from everybody else in the world including all other applicants.

Ask her what she thinks Randi should do in that case?

I have said that too, but she said that all psychics use the same kind of powers. Nothing gets through to this woman. She has a fanatical hatred of Randi, and will twist anything she's offered into some more proof that Randi is evil. But self-delusion and people who believe they have super powers, go hand in hand, so I shouldn't really be surprised.

Thanks for the advices everyone. I have ended the discussion with her, and will instead go find someone who I will be able to communicate with.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

The JREF challenge makes me wonder; should we send magicians in to help out with any experiment that involves people, you know, to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

 

[69dodge]

Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Originally posted by jzs
The JREF challenge makes me wonder; should we send magicians in to help out with any experiment that involves people, you know, to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

Who's "we"?

Everyone is free to run his experiment as he sees fit. And everyone else is free to ascribe as much credibility to the experiment as he feels it deserves.

P.S. Your question makes me wonder: why are you, you know, such a troublemaker?

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

The JREF challenge makes me wonder; should we send magicians in to help out with any experiment that involves people, you know, to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

Hello? Are you for real? What log have you been living under? The LAST thing most of these scam artists want is someone who can actually see through their trickery turn up when they take their shot at the million.

And have a look at what Beneviste said about Randi turning up at his (failed) testing of homeopathy by the Horizon team. And at what people like Schwartz and Edwards and Sylvia have to say along similar lines. You wouldn't be their friends for long with this kind of suggestion.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Who's "we"?

Anyone interested in science.

P.S. Your question makes me wonder: why are you, you know, such a troublemaker?

You basically avoided the actual question.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

What log have you been living under?

I live in a nice apt.

The LAST thing most of these scam artists want is someone who can actually see through their trickery turn up when they take their shot at the million.

Not just with 'scam artists', where the need is obvious, but with science experiments in general.

Say there is some psychology experiment somewhere or some biology or medical experiment, etc. Should we send in magicians to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Not just with 'scam artists', where the need is obvious, but with science experiments in general.

Say there is some psychology experiment somewhere or some biology or medical experiment, etc. Should we send in magicians to prevent possible trickery/self delusion?

I believe Randi himself has recommended something similar; that any self-respecting scientist should be aware of the possibility of trickery and consult a magician if necessary as part of the experimental design to control for it.

 

[69dodge]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Originally posted by jzs
Anyone interested in science [should perhaps send in magicians].

You basically avoided the actual question.

I was not as explicit as I might have been, but I figured you'd get the idea.

A random person who's interested in science can't "send in" magicians if the people running the experiment don't want him to. All he can do is decide how much he trusts the results of the experiment.

If there was lots of opportunity and motivation for cheating, and the results of the experiment are very surprising, he might reasonably be suspicious of the results. If there was little opportunity and motivation for cheating, and the results are nothing out of the ordinary anyway, he might reasonably be trusting of the results.

Therefore, people who run experiments should make sure that no opportunity for cheating exists---by consulting magicians if necessary---if they want others to trust any very surprising results that may ... um ... result.

Was that sufficiently explicit?

May I ask you some questions now?

Don't you think that the million dollar prize provides to Challenge applicants a greater motivation to cheat than the participants in most scientific experiments have? Also, that a Challenge applicant successfully demonstrating paranormal powers is a much more surprising result than most scientific experiments are likely to yield? And therefore that more stringent precautions against cheating are warranted during the Challenge than during most scientific experiments?

Oh, and I still want to know why you're such a troublemaker.

 

[patnray]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Say there is some psychology experiment somewhere or some biology or medical experiment, etc. Should we send in magicians to prevent possible trickery/self delusion? [/B]

Most psychology, biology, and medical experiments are conducted with people chosen randomly who do not calim any special "powers" and do not have any motivation to cheat. They often do not know what the experiment is designed to test. And these fields do not have a long prior history of being fooled by frauds and con artists. Many parapsycholgy experiments are also done with subjects chosen at random.

It is when evaluating people who do claim some special "power" that the potential for fraud becomes an issue.

There have been cases where researchers have falsified data, but these cases could not be uncovered by magicians. They are discovered by peer review and careful examination of the raw data.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Don't you think that the million dollar prize provides to Challenge applicants a greater motivation to cheat than the participants in most scientific experiments have?

It is certainly another reason to cheat. However, grant money, tenure, and lots not forget probably the biggest reason; prestiege, power, being well known.

And therefore that more stringent precautions against cheating are warranted during the Challenge than during most scientific experiments?

Yes, I agree with that; tighter experimental conditions and smaller alpha.

Oh, and I still want to know why you're such a troublemaker.

I'm getting a new car. What should I get?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

It is certainly another reason to cheat. However, grant money, tenure, and lots not forget probably the biggest reason; prestiege, power, being well known.

Remember we're talking here about a specific kind of cheating -- the sort that magicians are likely to be able to catch, such as sleight-of-hand, active misdirection, and so forth. The person likely to get grant money, tenure, prestige, power, etc. from a typcial scientific experiment is the experimentor, not the subject. The experimentor has a lot of easier ways to cheat such as simply making up data, or lying in their papers.

Magicians are great at catching cheating on the part of the experimental subject during the experiment itself. Once the experiment is over, the magician will probably go home, then. At which point the experimentor could still go to town....

 

[69dodge]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Originally posted by 69dodge
A random person who's interested in science can't "send in" magicians if the people running the experiment don't want him to.

jzs, I guess you already knew that. So, what did you mean by, "should we send in magicians?"

Originally posted by jzs
I'm getting a new car. What should I get?

Whatever kind you like.

But please don't drive it slowly in the passing lane.

Because that would be annoying.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

jzs, I guess you already knew that. So, what did you mean by, "should we send in magicians?"Whatever kind you like.

If an experiment is going on where the potential to cheat is there (ie. all experiments), should the commitee (organization, whatever) who ultimately oversee the experiment, or an independent organization or 'watchdog" group, send in a magician(s) to make sure cheating doesn't take place?

But please don't drive it slowly in the passing lane.

LOL, there is no chance of that. I'm thinking of a Scion, xA or tC.
(http://www.scion.com/drive/gallery/drive_xa_gallery.html)

 

[Skeptic]

Keep going, and going, but you never get anything specific for an answer. Of course, it is important that they never actually define their abilities, because in that case, they know that they can be shown to be wrong, so they keep it as vague as possible to leave it non-testable.

Which always makes me wonder why on earth does anybody claim psychic abilities.

Out-and-out frauds have the profit motive, but the "average Joe" of a psychic is not like that. He tries to believe something that, deep down, he KNOWS isn't true. They are constantly in denial.

Denial is understandable under some circumstances. Mind you, often people are like that due to the stresses of life, not being able to face a horrible truth.

But why in God's name would anybody find it so horrible and horrific to admit, not that they're dying of cancer, or their wife is cheating on them, or their son an alcoholic... but merely that they are not "psychic"?

Is that really that hard to face? Isn't it a bit on the same order of finally coming to accept that you cannot fly by flapping your arms?

 

[69dodge]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

Originally posted by jzs
If an experiment is going on where the potential to cheat is there (ie. all experiments), should the commitee (organization, whatever) who ultimately oversee the experiment, or an independent organization or 'watchdog" group, send in a magician(s) to make sure cheating doesn't take place?

All experiments?

You are seriously asking whether it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?

No, of course not.

Did you expect anyone to give you a different answer than that?

How about you? Do you think it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?

LOL, there is no chance of that. I'm thinking of a Scion, xA or tC.
(http://www.scion.com/drive/gallery/drive_xa_gallery.html)

The tC looks nice. (Naturally, it's the more expensive one. )

At least you had the sense to avoid the hideous xB.

Now if only you could extend that sensibility just a bit, and avoid asking silly questions ...

In any case, I think I will try in the future to have the sense to avoid answering silly questions.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Randi's challenge scientific?

All experiments?

You are seriously asking whether it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?

Yes.

Why not?

You're telling me that for a science experiment, which usually are very expensive, that hiring a magician, in addition, would be a serious expense?

If I am to be persuaded that magicians are needed for detecting trickery in experiments where there is a chance for deception, why not use them in all such experiments? How can we be sure of the results from such experiments unless a magician is present?

How about you? Do you think it's a good use of limited resources to hire magicians to be present at every single scientific experiment?

If there is trickery going on, how can we be sure unless we have magicians present?

 

[69dodge]

I do not know how expensive experiments generally are. Presumably, there is a wide range.

There is always something else money can be spent on. I don't see why magicians should always be at the top of the list. But neither should they always be at the bottom of the list.

Things are rarely black and white. Recognizing that fact would, I figure, be second nature to someone with statistical training. Yet you seem to be saying that there are only two reasonable positions: (1) completely trust all experiments, or (2) completely distrust an experiment unless a magician was present.

One's level of confidence in the results of an experiment should never, in my opinion, be 0% or 100%; rather, it should always be somewhere in between. Yet you seem to be considering only those two extremes.

Asking "how can we be sure?" is the wrong question. We can never be sure of anything. The right question is, "what factors affect our level of confidence?". The presence or absence of a magician is one factor among many. In some experiments, it is a big factor; in others, a negligible one. I briefly described, in a previous post, when it's important and when it isn't. drkitten's comment is also quite relevant, I think.

If I am to persuade you of anything, it would help if I knew what your current position is and why you hold it. Do you trust every experiment, or none, which was not supervised by a magician? If you trust some but not others, then we already basically agree, and there is no need for persuasion.