Merged Odds Standard for Preliminary Test

Rodney said:
You might try re-reading post #6 on this thread, in which I stated that "it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."
Click to expand...

There is exactly as much of a hint of what level they must perform as there is for anyone else. Plenty of people have applied, therefore this argument does not work.

In any case, this is really not relevant to the challenge at all. There have been plenty of discussions about this before. The challenge exists simply to counter many silly claims that people make by actually testing them. It does not pretend to be a detailed scientific study, and it does not pretend to cover all possibilities all it does is ask what someone can do and see if they can demonstrate it. Is it possible that some people have an incredibly weak, unreliable psychic ability that can only be seen in lengthy studies? Sure. Does the challenge care about this? No. It is not designed to test that sort of claim. If people want to look for that sort of ability, great. Good luck to them. It's nothing to do with the challenge.

There are plenty of other things the challenge does not test for as well. Cloudbusting, summoning aliens, curing cancer, religion, anything involving possible harm, and so on. Is this really such a big deal? The challenge will test for some things but not for others. Does someone claim something it won't or can't test? Unlucky. Maybe they can find somewhere else to test it.
 
Rodney said:
You might try re-reading post #6 on this thread, in which I stated that "it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."
Click to expand...

What about a duration standard? What about a distance standard? Elevation? Temperature? There are many metrics that the JREF would wish to limit (I doubt they would trouble themselves to find observers that could travel near the top of Mt. Everest if a claimant believes their ability won't work any closer to sea-level).

What if a applicant wishes to apply with a protocol but the odds are 1:999? If a 1:1000 standard were listed, people may shy away if their working protocol falls short (even though I'm fairly sure JREF would find 1:999 just fine). It would seem likely an explicit standard would drive away more claimants than an assumed one.
 
Rodney said:
Your analogy is off-point. A golfer who hit more bad shots than good shots might be boring and not allowed to play with the pros, but the relevant question would be: Is his golfing performance better than that of an individual selected at random from the population at large? Ganzfeld experiments will never pass muster as nightclub entertainment, but if over time the results can beat odds of one in a million, they aren't random.
Click to expand...

You know, if the ganzfield researchers actually did this, if they demonstrated that they could reliably tell the difference between an influenced and an uninfluenced machine (suitably double blinded of course) people would have a lot less issues with their research.

Instead they focus on mining the data to find anomalies, never the same one twice, and then say, "The chance of this anomaly occurring is 1 in a billion."

Which is about what you expect them to be able to find, when they have a billion different anomalies to search for.

Because of this, they've lost their sponsors (PEAR closed down), they're not allowed to play with the pros (can't get published in reputable journals)
 
Cuddles said:
The challenge exists simply to counter many silly claims that people make by actually testing them. It does not pretend to be a detailed scientific study, and it does not pretend to cover all possibilities all it does is ask what someone can do and see if they can demonstrate it. Is it possible that some people have an incredibly weak, unreliable psychic ability that can only be seen in lengthy studies? Sure. Does the challenge care about this? No. It is not designed to test that sort of claim. If people want to look for that sort of ability, great. Good luck to them. It's nothing to do with the challenge.
Click to expand...
That's not what the home page on the Challenge states: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." (emphasis added) See http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html However, if you are correct, I recommend that the JREF clarify that the Challenge is restricted to "silly claims" of the paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
 
Jekyll said:
You know, if the ganzfield researchers actually did this, if they demonstrated that they could reliably tell the difference between an influenced and an uninfluenced machine (suitably double blinded of course) people would have a lot less issues with their research.

Instead they focus on mining the data to find anomalies, never the same one twice, and then say, "The chance of this anomaly occurring is 1 in a billion."

Which is about what you expect them to be able to find, when they have a billion different anomalies to search for.

Because of this, they've lost their sponsors (PEAR closed down), they're not allowed to play with the pros (can't get published in reputable journals)
Click to expand...
You're confusing mind-machine interaction studies, which is what PEAR did, with Ganzfeld studies, in which someone who is in a state of mild sensory deprivation attempts to mentally send a target image to a recipient. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment
 
If you fiddle with the stats long enough, you can get them to show just about whatever you want, especially with so-called meta-analyses, which is why they're not held in very high esteem.


M.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
You might try re-reading post #6 on this thread, in which I stated that "it may be possible for someone to pick out a red card at a significantly above chance rate, even if that rate is only 51-52% over thousands of trials. Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars? The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."
Click to expand...

Even though I'm a little late to the discussion, I feel I must respond to this. Although the essence has already been explained by Cuddles and others, I believe that there is one very specific misunderstanding in your post, and I would like to address that.

There are two distinct chances at play here: 1. The chance at which the alleged paranormal ability works. For example, a person might predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% success rate, or 80% success rate, or, if she really only has a very hazy vision of the future, with 51% success rate. 2. The chance of the person passing the preliminary (or real) test without having the ability that she claims to have. In other words, the probability of a false positive. I put those words in bold because it is important to understand that that is precisely what it is: a false positive. It's not the odds of succeeding in the preliminary test; it's the odds of the test failing and incorrectly crediting a "muggle" with the claimed paranormal ability.

And you are mixing those two chances. Perhaps you are under the impression that the criterion of demonstrating a paranormal ability is achieving something with the odds of 1:1000, or 1:1,000,000, or some other small chance. But that is not the case. That is not called paranormal, that is called luck. If beating a chance of 1:1,000,000 was all that was necessary to "demonstrate a paranormal ability", then why, there would be 6,600 eligible winners of the MDC out there - and none of the winners would need any paranormal ability whatsoever.

Rodney said:
Would such a person apply for the prize, when there is not even a hint in the official rules of what level (s)he must perform at even to pass the preliminary test, let alone win the million dollars?
Click to expand...

That's because there is no prescribed level she must perform at. You are again confusing the claimed success rate, and the probability that she passes the test without having the alleged ability. There is no limit whatsoever about the former. You can make any sort of claim. For example: "I can predict the outcome of a coin toss with 85% success rate." Or "I can match a person to their astrological sign with a success rate of 1:10." Or "In coin tossing, I achieve success rate 50.01% over thousands of trials." There is no "minimum success rate" as you seem to be hinting, and certainly none in any way derived from the numbers 1:1000 or 1:1,000,000.

First, the claimant makes a claim about their abilities. Then, a test is designed that they will be able to pass easily if they can do what they claim, and unlikely to pass if they cannot do it. Just how unlikely they will be to pass in that case has nothing to do with the claimed success rate! The claim is made based on what the person knows or believes she can do. They are to make this assessment on their own and come up with a success rate they are confident they can manage.

It has been said before, but it's worth being said again: The Million Dollar Challenge is not a contest. It is not a research project. It is not a means of screening the population for paranormal talents. It is a challenge to those who claim they have paranormal abilities, to demonstrate them and win $1,000,000.

You seem to be under the impression that the MDC is a test tool. That if you think you may have paranormal abilities, but are not sure, you can come forth, and be tested, and JREF will tell you, "congratulations, you are psychic" or "sorry, not psychic enough". If it worked like that, sure, there would be a point in a "prescribed success rate".

But it doesn't work like that. If you are not sure about your paranormal abilities, you should not apply. This challenge is to those who already did all necessary experiments and now claim that they have paranormal abilities. That's why it is not concerned with establishing your success rate - it leaves that to you. You are just supposed to announce it, and then prove it. And the exact probability of a false positive makes this neither easier nor more difficult for you. It is, indeed, quite irrelevant.

Rodney said:
The point is that, by not specifying an odds standard, serious challenges for the prize are discouraged."
Click to expand...

That makes no sense, and I'll explain why. Having a serious claim for the prize means being very certain that you have a particular paranormal ability, and very willing to demonstrate it. If you're not very certain that you have a paranormal ability, or not very willing to demonstrate it, you don't have a serious claim. It's that simple.

Now why would a person who is very confident of their paranormal ability, and very willing to demonstrate it, be discouraged by not knowing the probability of a false positive? That makes absolutely no sense. The probability of a false positive is irrelevant to any serious claimant. It's only relevant to JREF, with respect to the number of applicants and other factors.

There is another aspect of your remark: it is true that some claims are not testable. And some of them are not testable because testing them would take too many trials. So you might be saying that by not specifying the required odds, some might not know whether their claim will be deemed testable or not.

This makes no sense for two reasons: 1. The main factor determining the the required number of trails is the claim, not the maximum allowable odds of a false positive. If you claim you can predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% success rate, it takes only 10 tosses to get to 1:1000, and only 20 tosses to get to 1:1,000,000. If you claim a 55% success rate, it will take some 1000 tosses to get to 1:1000, and some 2300 to get to 1:1,000,000. Making the test a thousand times more difficult to win by sheer luck doesn't even make an order of difference in the number of trials here. - Thus, whether testing the claim would take too many trials or not depends far more on the claim itself than on the exact risk of a false positive that JREF is willing to take. If the claimed ability is too weak to be testable, an "odds standard" won't really make a difference.

2. It makes no sense that any serious claimants would be discouraged by this. If they are hesitating to apply because they don't know whether or not their claim would be deemed testable - although all it would take to find out is ask - then they can hardly be called serious claimants. If you're not willing to communicate with JREF, it's indeed better that you don't apply.
 
Thabiguy said:
It has been said before, but it's worth being said again: The Million Dollar Challenge is not a contest. It is not a research project. It is not a means of screening the population for paranormal talents. It is a challenge to those who claim they have paranormal abilities, to demonstrate them and win $1,000,000.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply discrediting delusional people.
 
Rodney said:
Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply discrediting delusional people.
Click to expand...

I fixed it for ya:

Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply educating people.
 
Rodney said:
Sadly, the more time passes, the more I agree with you: The MDC does not seem to be about investigating whether there is such a thing as the paranormal, but simply discrediting delusional people.
Click to expand...

Finally you begin to understand. This has been explained many, many times - no-one has ever claimed the challenge is about investigating the paranormal. It is a challenge, not an academic institute. The whole point is that Randi does not believe any paranormal abilities exist, and he is willing to offer a lot of money to anyone who can prove otherwise. He is not saying "I don't believe, so come here to test your ideas and see if you can find some evidence to the contrary.", he is saying "I don't believe, so if you have any evidence to the contrary come and show it to me.". There's a big difference there.
 
Cuddles said:
Finally you begin to understand. This has been explained many, many times - no-one has ever claimed the challenge is about investigating the paranormal. It is a challenge, not an academic institute. The whole point is that Randi does not believe any paranormal abilities exist, and he is willing to offer a lot of money to anyone who can prove otherwise. He is not saying "I don't believe, so come here to test your ideas and see if you can find some evidence to the contrary.", he is saying "I don't believe, so if you have any evidence to the contrary come and show it to me.". There's a big difference there.
Click to expand...
So Randi does not want serious challengers, such as Ganzfeld experimenters?
 
Rodney said:
So Randi does not want serious challengers, such as Ganzfeld experimenters?
Click to expand...

And now you've lost the understanding again. Of course Randi wants serious challengers. The key word there being challengers. The million dollar is a challenge, not an offer for speculative research. Challenge. Not investigation, challenge. If someone thinks they have an ability and can prove it in a simple test, Randi is interested. If someone thinks there just may be something in general claims of psychic abilities and wants to carry out long studies into whether there is something there or not, Randi is not interested.

I really don't know why you bother to carry on this nonsense about "serious" challengers. The fact is, the sort of things you are talking about are nothing to do with the challenge, so anyone proposing to apply for the challenge with them could not possibly be serious. Actually, that's not entirely true. I do know why you go on about serious challengers. It's because you can't admit that the reason nobody has passed the challenge is because nobody has magic powers, and so you pretend, like so many others, that it is really because the people who do have magic powers won't apply.
 
Cuddles said:
And now you've lost the understanding again. Of course Randi wants serious challengers. The key word there being challengers. The million dollar is a challenge, not an offer for speculative research. Challenge. Not investigation, challenge. If someone thinks they have an ability and can prove it in a simple test, Randi is interested. If someone thinks there just may be something in general claims of psychic abilities and wants to carry out long studies into whether there is something there or not, Randi is not interested.

I really don't know why you bother to carry on this nonsense about "serious" challengers. The fact is, the sort of things you are talking about are nothing to do with the challenge, so anyone proposing to apply for the challenge with them could not possibly be serious.
Click to expand...
You might try reading the Wikipedia article on Ganzfeld experiments -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

Excerpt: "Between 1974 and 2004, 88 ganzfeld experiments were done, reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 tests. In 1982, Charles Honorton presented a paper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association which summarized the results of the ganzfeld experiments up to that date, and concluded that they represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi. Ray Hyman, a skeptical psychologist, disagreed. The two men later independently analyzed the same studies, and both presented meta-analyses of them in 1985. Honorton thought that the data at that time indicated the existence of psi, and Hyman did not . . . In a 1995 paper discussing some of the challenges, deficiencies and achievements of modern laboratory parapsychology Ray Hyman said . . . 'I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.'"

So, even noted skeptic Ray Hyman is open to the possibility that the Ganzfeld experiments are producing significant results. Why don't you want to see a Ganzfeld challenger for the million dollars?

Cuddles said:
Actually, that's not entirely true. I do know why you go on about serious challengers. It's because you can't admit that the reason nobody has passed the challenge is because nobody has magic powers, and so you pretend, like so many others, that it is really because the people who do have magic powers won't apply.
Click to expand...
What I have argued on this thread is that: (a) In tests where the odds of success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard must be met; and (b) It is unclear whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge. So, why doesn't the JREF address these two areas by adding some clarifying language to the MDC rules?
 
Rodney said:
...
What I have argued on this thread is that: (a) In tests where the odds of success can be readily calculated, it is unclear what odds standard must be met; and (b) It is unclear whether time-consuming protocols, such as Ganzfeld experiments, are eligible for the Challenge. So, why doesn't the JREF address these two areas by adding some clarifying language to the MDC rules?
Click to expand...

(a): This has been explained repeatedly.

(b): All it takes is a simple inquiry at challenge@randi.org - having made sure that one meets all necessary qualifications. (I assume the costs and manpower involved would be considered two big hurdles.)

I encourage you to submit both those questions to the JREF. Feel free to post the answer(s) here.



But why bother with the JREF Challenge at all? If one has a "paranormal" ability, why not go for bigger fish?
 
GzuzKryzt said:
(a): This has been explained repeatedly.

(b): All it takes is a simple inquiry at challenge@randi.org - having made sure that one meets all necessary qualifications. (I assume the costs and manpower involved would be considered two big hurdles.)

I encourage you to submit both those questions to the JREF. Feel free to post the answer(s) here.
Click to expand...
As I indicated in post #38 on this thread, I did e-mail the JREF. So far, no response.

GzuzKryzt said:
But why bother with the JREF Challenge at all? If one has a "paranormal" ability, why not go for bigger fish?
Click to expand...
All in the fullness of time.
 
Moochie said:
Not in your or my lifetime.
Click to expand...
But someday? I sense progress. ;)

Moochie said:
And how many people accept that the meta-analyses you referred to actually show the results claimed?
Click to expand...
I think virtually everyone accepts that fact that there were 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials. The dispute center on whether psi was responsible. Again, though, why don't you want to see a Ganzfeld challenge for the million dollars when even Ray Hyman is open to the possibility that Ganzfeld experiments are producing significant (due to psi) results?
 
Rodney said:
But someday? I sense progress. ;)


I think virtually everyone accepts that fact that there were 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials. The dispute center on whether psi was responsible. Again, though, why don't you want to see a Ganzfeld challenge for the million dollars when even Ray Hyman is open to the possibility that Ganzfeld experiments are producing significant (due to psi) results?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm neutral on the matter. If these people wish to apply for the Challenge, let them. I'm sure most of us here would love to see some actual evidence.

As for the meta-analyses referred to, I'm highly suspicious of the results claimed, because I know how easy it is to screw up the stats in such analyses. So, my position is that I do not accept these "results." As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence. It will take a legion of Ray Hymans to sway me from that; i.e., results produced through properly conducted experiments that can be replicated so there is no doubt that we are seeing something -- just the way real science works.


M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom