But why only 20 trials for her and a proposed 40 for Pavel? Even if the JREF insists that Pavel has to achieve at least 75% hits (when he is claiming only a 70% hit rate), 24 hits in 32 trials would defy odds of 1:250, whereas Carina Landin could have passed by defying odds of only 1:170.
Merged Odds Standard for Preliminary Test
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- challenge mdc preliminary test
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Because their claims are quite different from each other.
Because their claimed success rate are quite different from each other.
Because each of the protocols are individualised to cover both of the above - so will be quite different from each other.
I stated that quite clearly in my previous post, obviously I need to repeat myself, so:
"Each claim determines it's own success rate.
Just so long as it fits the Applicant's claimed success rate and JREF is satisfied that their claim is sufficiently better than that which would occur due to random chance(i.e. "paranormal"), taking the claimant's proposed success rate is obviously quite sufficient."
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Nothing much beyond the fairly basic. 143 applications, 11 agreed protocols, 8 actual Prelim tests, 8 failed Prelim tests.
The difficulty in building any decent stats from the population is that the population is so varied. I had nearly 30 categories describing different paranormal "abilities".
I really should go back and review and refine the study now that I'm more familiar with all the claims. It probably won't be this month though, I've got some web pages for another forum thread (see sig) that I've got behind in maintaining in the last few weeks.
I appreciate your research, but I'm still puzzled as to why Carina Landin was held to an odds standard of only 1:170 in the preliminary test while the current proposal being floated for Pavel would hold him to an odds standard of 1:900. Bear in mind that Landin was claiming a higher success rate than Pavel (80% vs. 70%) so, if anything, it could be argued that she should have been held to a higher odds standard, not a lower one.
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,661
Thinking error. The odds standard is not necessarily related to the applicant's claimed success rate. The odds standard the JREF requires is more related to the protocol design, and in the case of Ms. Landin, as was pointed out, can be relaxed in some instances in order to facilitate a test when one might not otherwise occur. This is not one of those instances because a protocol to test Pavel does not run up against any logistical challenges, as the one for Carina did.
So if it's even more difficult to facilitate a test for an applicant than it was for Ms. Landin, the odds standard would be even lower?
There is no odds standard.
If you mean the odds of false positive, sure, JREF might be willing to accept higher odds of false positive for the preliminaries, depending on the particular case. Randi even announced that JREF may decide to skip the preliminary test altogether in certain cases, i.e. reduce the required odds to 1 in 1.
Why do you keep asking questions that you know perfectly well the answers to?
Czarcasm
Groovy Groovy Guru
Because he wishes to muddy the waters for anyone who is late in joining this conversation?
I agree that there is none in the official JREF MDC rules, but for several applicants, odds standards have been used in the preliminary tests.
Except that there appears to be no rhyme or reason for the higher or lower odds that each applicant must meet.
When did he announce that? According to Rule 6 of the MDC: "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member or representative of the JREF staff can attend."
How can I know the answers when the MDC rules are as muddled as they are?
Czarcasm
Groovy Groovy Guru
Just because the rules aren't as lax as you wish them to be doesn't make them muddled.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
All of that is covered by a single sentence in Rule 3.
3. We will consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the experimental design, is required.
All of that is covered by a single sentence in Rule 3.
3. We will consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the experimental design, is required.
Also note the very first point in the application itself (my bolding),
1
. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and
applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of
the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will
constitute both a positive and a negative result.
So. Again.
The applicant declares what constitutes a success or failure.
If the declared results require, JREF will consult statisticians to check whether such a result falls under the realm of random chance and if so require the applicant to perform to a level that does NOT fall within the bounds of random chance.
Finally and most importantly.
All applicants that have agreed to a protocol and/or been tested for the Preliminary Challenge have been tested at or below their declared "pass rate".
Your argument on lack of odds standards is irrelevant in light of that last fact. And fact it is.
Pavel's application is made difficult because he was unable to declare what his potential success rate was because his "skill", by his own admission, is hit and miss.
Landin declared emphatically that she could perform at 80%.
applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of
the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will
constitute both a positive and a negative result.
So. Again.
The applicant declares what constitutes a success or failure.
If the declared results require, JREF will consult statisticians to check whether such a result falls under the realm of random chance and if so require the applicant to perform to a level that does NOT fall within the bounds of random chance.
Finally and most importantly.
All applicants that have agreed to a protocol and/or been tested for the Preliminary Challenge have been tested at or below their declared "pass rate".
Your argument on lack of odds standards is irrelevant in light of that last fact. And fact it is.
Pavel's application is made difficult because he was unable to declare what his potential success rate was because his "skill", by his own admission, is hit and miss.
Landin declared emphatically that she could perform at 80%.
They are pretty clear.
As a friend of mine is wont to say, "I can 'splain it for you, but I can't understand it for you".
Or alternatively, the test would not happen at all because JREF would judge the test as being too difficult to run.
That's an evasion -- there should be a clear standard applicable to all odds-based applications. Up to this point, every such application appears to have been handled on an ad hoc "make it up as you go along" basis.
Try reading (Pavel's) post #281 on this thread:
"When I really tried to find out the odds and things, by emailing to JREF I was refused any answers, reasoning that I need to apply firs and after that we start any negotiation.. even when I have asked .. if I claim sirtain % of a minimum rate (that JREF ask to state in application and description of the claim) even that was ignored." Pavel then inquired: "Will it be fine for the claim as the accuracy to state 70% minimum from my side?"
So what do you suppose is the lowest standard that the JREF would accept in an odds-based preliminary test? In Carina Landin's case, it was 1:170. Would they go as low as 1:100? 1:50? 1:10? Or what???
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
May I speak in favor of Rodney? I don't endorse every word he's posted, but can I see the issue he's raising. Even though it's JREF's challenge, they set the rules, and they must agree on the protocol (as must the applicant), I don't see why an odds-based test should have different standards for different applicants, as a *substantive* matter. That JREF *can* put forward different odds for different applicants is not the issue.
It seems to be a matter of substance that a different odds standard (1/500, 1/1000), to ensure results beyond chance) should not be applied to different applicants. At minimum, and in the case of applicants claiming different success rates, a minimum standard would then apply, as EHocking infers in post 302, ""Each claim determines it's own success rate. Just so long as it fits the Applicant's claimed success rate and JREF is satisfied that their claim is sufficiently better than that which would occur due to random chance. . . ."
That minimum standard should be an intellectual, substantive issue, related to what is necessary to ensure results beyond chance, not related to the pragmatics of protocal negotiations.
It seems to be a matter of substance that a different odds standard (1/500, 1/1000), to ensure results beyond chance) should not be applied to different applicants. At minimum, and in the case of applicants claiming different success rates, a minimum standard would then apply, as EHocking infers in post 302, ""Each claim determines it's own success rate. Just so long as it fits the Applicant's claimed success rate and JREF is satisfied that their claim is sufficiently better than that which would occur due to random chance. . . ."
That minimum standard should be an intellectual, substantive issue, related to what is necessary to ensure results beyond chance, not related to the pragmatics of protocal negotiations.
In January 2007. See here, look for the word "waive".
Thanks. However, I note that Randi stated: "We may be prepared to possibly waive the requirement for a preliminary test as soon as these two qualifications have been validated. In such a case we will be prepared to move right into the second phase: the formal test." Certainly, if the JREF is seriously considering a waiver, they should say so, instead of continuing to state in Rule 6 of the MDC: "In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test . . ."
You keep saying this. You are also the ONLY person who keeps saying this, which suggests to me that, no, there is no necessity for such a standard.
Tell you what. When you get a million dollars, you can make whatever rules you like. Until then, STFU.
Demonstrably, 1 in 1. They've already offered to waive the preliminary test for some applications in an effort to get them to be tested at all.