Randi's Tests...

[Locknar]

The following comment was made in another thread:

Peer pressure???

Sorry mate, I`m not one of you. I dont belong to some sort of Skeptic brotherhood. And believe me, word spreads quickly on the net. Randi`s tests are rubbish

Anyone care to discuss either way? Perhaps idunno can elaborate as its his/her claim...a mighty big claim at that.

NOTE: BOLD was added for emphasis and not part of the original quote

 

[Complexity]

It is easy - if idunno claims that Randi's tests are 'rubbish', then he thinks he has an excuse not to apply for the Challenge.

idunno has failed so utterly at everything he's tried on this forum, he'll say anything to try to retain some dignity.

Far too late.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

If Randi's tests are rubbish, the claimants have to share the blame for the rubbishness. Claimants design their own tests (with JREF approval, of course).

 

[Locknar]

If Randi's tests are rubbish, the claimants have to share the blame for the rubbishness. Claimants design their own tests (with JREF approval, of course).

Oh, I 100% agree. The comment just seemed to warrent it's own thread (for what it is worth anyway).

I'd think those claiming the test a fraud just have sour grapes from failing at a test they designed.

 

[Apathia]

Randi has a set of tests?

No.

Somebody knows zilch about the Million Dollar Challenge.

 

[idunno]

It is easy - if idunno claims that Randi's tests are 'rubbish', then he thinks he has an excuse not to apply for the Challenge.

idunno has failed so utterly at everything he's tried on this forum, he'll say anything to try to retain some dignity.

Far too late.

Talk about dignity..

 

[-Fran-]

I think that what idunno was talking about were these tests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxvPJFv6X94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvVftFZHXSI

and so on. There is a whole slew of these clips at the link below, where you can also find a lot of other Randi-related clips:

http://www.geocities.com/drugfreealcoholic/

And I think he was especially referring to this test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDhxcIaC23k

in his other thread. I didn't get the impression that it was about the JREF $1 million dollar challenge at all, this time.

 

[Locknar]

in his other thread. I didn't get the impression that it was about the JREF $1 million dollar challenge at all, this time.

Could be; I had hoped he would elaborate as he was the one making the claim..but thus far only silly faces - doh

In the one from the other thread, I don't quite follow his logic in claiming Randi is a fraud, or the test is somehow rigged.

 

[-Fran-]

Could be; I had hoped he would elaborate as he was the one making the claim..but thus far only silly faces - doh

Yes, that would be interesting indeed, if he did, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

In the one from the other thread, I don't quite follow his logic in claiming Randi is a fraud, or the test is somehow rigged.

I suspect that is because there was no logic to follow.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If claimaints cannot aver "I can do X" then demonstrate an ability to do X then it is their claim that is rubbish, not any tests performed on them.

 

[omegablue]

Randi´s tests ARE silly.

 

[schlitt]

Randi´s tests ARE silly.

Randi's test ARE NOT silly.

Which out of our two statements is correct?

back up your statements with evidence and reason, otherwise they are meaningless.

 

[-Fran-]

Randi´s tests ARE silly.

I watched all of the clips on that page I linked to above a few days ago. This is my personal opinion of them:

They were not scientifically full proof, but that did not seem to be the intent. The shows were made to be entertaining as well as making a point. There were several times, though I can't remember now exactly where in the clips, when I thought that Randi could have driven that point home more effectively. But all in all, he used simple means to show quite clearly that there is indeed very little behind the claims of the people he tested, to a mixed audience in a way that all could follow.

I don't know if that's silly or not. I did find some of the clips quite entertaining, and others a bit more boring.

 

[Apathia]

I think that what idunno was talking about were these tests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxvPJFv6X94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvVftFZHXSI

and so on. There is a whole slew of these clips at the link below, where you can also find a lot of other Randi-related clips:

http://www.geocities.com/drugfreealcoholic/

And I think he was especially referring to this test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDhxcIaC23k

in his other thread. I didn't get the impression that it was about the JREF $1 million dollar challenge at all, this time.

Ah, I see. Ididn'tknow!
Idunno may have a point there. These aren't serious tests, but are for the purpose of show.

 

[-Fran-]

Ah, I see. Ididn'tknow!
Idunno may have a point there. These aren't serious tests, but are for the purpose of show.

Yes. I do think they still make some valid points, but they are mainly for entertainment of course.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'll say the same thing I said in the other thread:
Who's tests?

. . .
Applicant must state clearly what is being claimed as the special ability upon which they wish to be tested, and test protocols must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, so that no judging or voting process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test(s) may be properly designed and carried out.
. . .
15. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRELIMINARY OR THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.
. . .

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

 

[idunno]

I watched all of the clips on that page I linked to above a few days ago. This is my personal opinion of them:

They were not scientifically full proof, but that did not seem to be the intent. The shows were made to be entertaining as well as making a point. There were several times, though I can't remember now exactly where in the clips, when I thought that Randi could have driven that point home more effectively. But all in all, he used simple means to show quite clearly that there is indeed very little behind the claims of the people he tested, to a mixed audience in a way that all could follow.

I don't know if that's silly or not. I did find some of the clips quite entertaining, and others a bit more boring.

people may think those tests are for real

 

[-Fran-]

people may think those tests are for real

They are for real, you know, they are not made up. If you mean that they were not scientifically full proof (which they weren't, that's true), then that suggests that you think your Astrologer would have fared better in a real scientific test?

 

[idunno]

They are for real, you know, they are not made up. If you mean that they were not scientifically full proof (which they weren't, that's true), then that suggests that you think your Astrologer would have fared better in a real scientific test?

not Cainer. He disapointed me. But remember the show was in 1991. He was young. His later posts in 1998 seemed good

 

[idunno]

i think Rob Hand is the astrologer to be tested. About 4 years ago, he found out what house system and methods the ancients used.
For instance the greek word «kapos» didnt mean houses as many astrologers thought, but «signs» or «places»
He uses Arabic parts unlike most astrolopgers today.
and «cusp» is not te beginning of a house,but a «point»