Predefined tests

[CynicalSkeptic]

I think it would behoove Randi to have several pre-defined tests available as well as the ability to negotiate your own test for the MDC.

In the recent Larry King episode with Rosemary Altea (see this thread, Rosemary laughs out loud when Randi is questioned what the test entails, and he replies "it all depends on what the claim is". Yes, yes, I understand the point of tailoring the test to the claimant, but to the casual observer, I can see why the existing rules may be perceived as "moving the goalposts" by Randi.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I'm pretty sure Mr. Randi has mapped out quite some protocols in his mind. If a claim is submitted, he can immediately propose a test scenario.

However, it all depends on the claim.

The reluctance of Ms. Browne, Mr. Geller, Mr. Van Praagh and Ms. Altea and the other cohorts of claim-belters demonstrate exactly one aspect of what Mr. Randi intends to show the public: They got nuthin'.

Of course, a failed test would show the utter lack of ability much clearer.

On the other hand, a successful test would - among other things - open a new realm of studies ("Talking to the Dead"), a revised understanding of physics ("Spoonbending") and powerful insights into the human brain/mind ("Telekinesis", "Predicting the Future", etc.).

Once a claim has been made by an applicant, Mr. Randi's protocol proposals are usually very simple and straightforward, exemplified by his statement: "If you claim to play the violin, we won't ask you to play the piano." (I may have gotten the wording wrong, but you should get the gist, right?)



The changes to the JREF Challenge do not at all affect the rules; no goalposts have been moved. What might be perceived by casual observers is speculative, or in your case, cynical.

Simply, the focus on the targeted "claimants" has shifted.

USD 1,000,000 "to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions."

 

[NiallM]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If, dor instance, there was a protocol for psychics which said: "Contact Houdini beyond the grave and obtain the combination to his safe", then psychics will say "Oh, that's not what I do. I need to have a family member with me.". Then they'll let the world know that the test is too prohibitive for them to consider.

Letting them design the test removes all excuses.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

I'm saying that he should do both. Have a handful of pre-defined tests, and allow people to devise their own if the existing ones are not satisfactory:

- Bend a spoon without touching it
- get 80/100 Zener cards correct when "sent" by someone in another room, under these specific conditions...
- dowse for gold/quartz/lead/copper/diamond (supplied by claimant) or water when hidden under one of 10 plastic containers.

OR devise your own test.

 

[Horatius]

I'm saying that he should do both. Have a handful of pre-defined tests, and allow people to devise their own if the existing ones are not satisfactory:

- Bend a spoon without touching it
- get 80/100 Zener cards correct when "sent" by someone in another room, under these specific conditions...
- dowse for gold/quartz/lead/copper/diamond (supplied by claimant) or water when hidden under one of 10 plastic containers.

OR devise your own test.

The problem is, they already use any and all excuses for not taking the test. If we had pre-defined tests, they'd latch onto that as another excuse, and simply ignore the fact that they still have the option to design their own test.

 

[robinson]

hmmm....interesting idea.

 

[Gr8wight]

I think it would behoove Randi to have several pre-defined tests available as well as the ability to negotiate your own test for the MDC.

In the recent Larry King episode with Rosemary Altea (see this thread, Rosemary laughs out loud when Randi is questioned what the test entails, and he replies "it all depends on what the claim is". Yes, yes, I understand the point of tailoring the test to the claimant, but to the casual observer, I can see why the existing rules may be perceived as "moving the goalposts" by Randi.

This is one area where I think Randi missed the boat in his interview. By making the statement, "it depends on the claim," he allows the W00-W00 he is debating to use the "Randi changes the test at his own whim argument." I think, when confronted with this, Randi should just say, "I don't design the test." He should simply state that applicants design their own tests, and leave it at that unless the issue is pursued further by the interviewer. It is a method of putting the ball back in the W00-W00's court.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

This is one area where I think Randi missed the boat in his interview. By making the statement, "it depends on the claim," he allows the W00-W00 he is debating to use the "Randi changes the test at his own whim argument." I think, when confronted with this, Randi should just say, "I don't design the test." He should simply state that applicants design their own tests, and leave it at that unless the issue is pursued further by the interviewer. It is a method of putting the ball back in the W00-W00's court.

If people who you are calling "W00-W00" debate changes to the test , they simply show that they have not yet understood what the changes are about - and perhaps willfully so. The primary focus has shifted; from the general public onto the big names.



The test protocols are mutually negotiated to:

1. Prove what the applicant claims.
2. Ensure a scientific validity.

 

[Gr8wight]

If people who you are calling "W00-W00" debate changes to the test , they simply show that they have not yet understood what the changes are about - and perhaps willfully so. The primary focus has shifted; from the general public onto the big names.



The test protocols are mutually negotiated to:

1. Prove what the applicant claims.
2. Ensure a scientific validity.

What you say is correct. However, I am not talking about specific, extremely detailed accuracy. I am talking about PR. The statement, "the applicant designs their own test," is basically correct. If an interviewer presses for more information, Randi could say that all the foundation does is insist upon controls that ensure the test cannot be passed with mundane methods, but the test design, by the rules of the challenge, is the responsibility of the applicant.

Again, I am specifically talking about situations like the other night on Larry King, where Randi is being attacked by a hostile W00 guest like Rosemary Altea. Instead of walking into what experience has told him are common traps set by his debaters, he needs to practice responses that, as I said in my first post, put the ball back in the W00 court.

And, all this is close to being off topic in this thread. My apologies to the OP.

 

[robinson]

Scientific test are very expensive to do, and they have to pass peer review, and be repeatable.

 

[Gr8wight]

Scientific test are very expensive to do, and they have to pass peer review, and be repeatable.

robinson, you have now made two posts in this thread, and I fail to see how either of them are even remotely relevant. What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Spindrift]

This is one area where I think Randi missed the boat in his interview. By making the statement, "it depends on the claim," he allows the W00-W00 he is debating to use the "Randi changes the test at his own whim argument." I think, when confronted with this, Randi should just say, "I don't design the test." He should simply state that applicants design their own tests, and leave it at that unless the issue is pursued further by the interviewer. It is a method of putting the ball back in the W00-W00's court.

Very good point.

I think a response to the question of what the test entails should be a little more expansive: "I don't design the test, the test is created in collaboration with the challenger based on each challengers claims."

Then the follow-up:
"Since each challengers claim will have some unique features to it, there can't be generic test. The test must be tailored to the claimant. And this is not "moving the goal posts", each challenger plays on a different field so each gets their own set of goal posts."

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Yeah, but that doesn't make a good sound-bite answer in the type of interview he was in, where he was constantly interrupted by LK or Rosemary Altea.

I guess that was my point in this whole thread. I agree that the test needs to be tailored to each particular claimant, but the explanation of that doesn't come across well in the kind of rapid-fire back and forth shouting match when he's confronting a woo on TV.

 

[Gr8wight]

Yeah, but that doesn't make a good sound-bite answer in the type of interview he was in, where he was constantly interrupted by LK or Rosemary Altea.

I guess that was my point in this whole thread. I agree that the test needs to be tailored to each particular claimant, but the explanation of that doesn't come across well in the kind of rapid-fire back and forth shouting match when he's confronting a woo on TV.

That's why I was suggesting it be kept simple. Randi should simply say, "I don't design the test," or, "the applicant designs their own test." There's your simple, positive, forceful soundbite. Detail can be gone into afterwards if the interviewer follows that line of questioning, but get that soundbite out there.

On Larry King we had this...

Larry King: what does a test entail?
Randi: that depends on the claim
Rosemary Altea: here we go again!

In that exchange, Altea got the soundbite.
Contrast that with this...

Larry King: what does the test entail
Randi: the applicant designs their own test
Rosemary Altea: ...!

What does she say to that? If she wants to refute that, she's the one who has to go into detail, and Randi's the one who has the strong, memorable soundbite.