Classic.
I admire your fortitude in the face of overwhelming fuckwittedness.

Sounds as if he's been taking lessons from pseudoskeptic James Randi!

http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/163-About-the-James-Randi-Million-do...

Unbelievable! And, as you say, pathetic.

Well you can tell the guy is a total loon with no intention of even attempting the challenge when you read the link to LeftbrainRightbrain. There is a link to the contract which has all sorts of bizarre requirements:
http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/ContractPartA.htm

(Hey, Carl! Does Randi require challengers to do all this stuff, including donating a bunch of cash!)

Begin quote
A. Psychiatric Evaluations

Participant agrees to undergo psychiatric evaluations ....

B. Mental Health Records

Participant agrees to submit, within 45 (forty-five) days of Participant's signing of the Agreement, documents comprising a verifiable written history of all psychological counseling and therapy ...

C. Email Examination

Participant agrees to take a written open-book examination (the "Basic Exam") before becoming eligible to receive Part B of the Agreement....

D. Book Purchase

To assure Participant's complete and thorough familiarity with and understanding of possible immediate and long-term physical and psychological hazards of chemicals commonly used as disinfectant, preservative, medium, or other additives in vaccines, as well as possible immediate and long-term behavioral changes that may occur from ingestion of or contact with these chemicals, Participant agrees to obtain at Participant's cost the following recently published books (the "Books"):...

E. Written Examination

Participant agrees to take a written closed-book examination ...

F. Good Health Certification

To certify that Participant is in normal health ("Good Health") (so that, upon Participant's possible sickness or death after the ingestion of the Mixture, Participant and/or agents of Participant cannot reasonably claim that sickness or death was due to causes other than the ingestion of the Mixture), Participant agrees to a general physical exam including a blood test (the "Physical Exam"), at Participant's expense,...

Securing of Medical Professionals:

Participant agrees to secure three medical professionals ...

Television Appearances:

Participant agrees to make at least five regional or national television appearances ...

Participant Donations:

In the event that Participant signs Part A of the Agreement but fails to sign the Agreement-in-Full within 120 (one hundred and twenty) days of the signing of Part A of the Agreement, Participant agrees to donate by check the amount of $5,000.00 (five thousand U.S. dollars),...

End quote

Hi "Layperson Scientist,"

In an effort to quell the lies you're spreading about 1) vaccines and 2) my vaccine challenge, I'll go point by point.

1. You say that it's "a lie" that my "Open Letter to Peter Bowditch" has been up for over a year.

http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/OpenLetterToPeterBowditch.htm

Actually my letter has been up for over two years, so it's not a lie. This can be confirmed by the kind folks at Hostica (hostica.com).

Now the question is: Will you and Peter admit that you have lied to the public, or will you continue your deceit of the public? Put your response here, in this blog. I don't accept emails from people who are slandering me, but I'm happy to read their answers to my challenges on their blogs. :)

2. Regarding your many emails, unread by me, in which you say you have written about your doctor friends being willing to take my challenge (your words above: "I do know some M.D.s - one in the UK, one in the U.S., and having spoken to them, both were willing to take part").

I am waiting for emails from either of these phantom doctors to appear in my inbox. I will absolutely proceed with the challenge process with the U.S. doctor (UK doctors are not eligible for my offer), if in fact this U.S. doctor a) is currently licensed and b) regularly administers childhood vaccines. Those requirements have always been the terms of my offer.

There's no problem -- except the whirlwind of controversy you have tried to create around my offer. The *problem* is you. Because I don't read emails from people 1) who slander me and 2) toss lies about vaccines around cyberspace, YOU feel that I have somehow not lived up to my side the Vaccine Offer bargain.

In fact, I patiently wait for someone, ANYone, who is 1) a currently U.S.-licensed MD or 2) a pharmco CEO or 3) a member of the ACIP to take me up on my challenge.

I Am Still Waiting After All These Years.

3. You talk about "increasingly absurd entry requirements" for my vaccine challenge. This is a lie. My entry requirements have never "increased" but have remained exactly the same since the beginning. Only the REWARD has increased. It's now at $175,000. Still waiting to hear from those MDs you mentioned. :)

4. You say you "didn't quite meet the requirements" of my vaccine challenge. Mmhmm. Well, either you meet the requirements or you don't.

You don't. :)

So what's your issue with my vaccine challenge? What's your emotional tie to wanting to drink poisons in public? What do you get out of that? Why don't you do something useful like read a book on epidemiology. Obviously you have time to spend blogging lies about vaccines. Maybe you'd have time to read a book.

What a concept, right? Research?

For your readers (if any), my Vaccine Offer is here:
http://spontaneouscreation.org/SC/$75,000VaccineOffer.htm

Sincerely,

Jock Doubleday
Director
Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc.
A California 501(c)3 Nonprofit Corporation
http://spontaneouscreation.org
director@spontaneouscreation.org

1) No I don't. The lie you told is that Peter didn't respond - he clearly did. Why on Earth are you making up things I haven't said?

2) Amazing that it's only now that you start replying. Please e-mail me with a) details of exactly what documentation you require, b) details of the mixture, c) evidence that you have the required funds (e.g. scanned copy of a bank statement with important numbers blanked obviously), d) a list of dates on which you will be available and e) the location you intend the challenge to take place at. I believe this is a simple and reasonable set of requirements for you to fulfil so that we know we're not sending material to some random kook on the internet.

3) Actually it's pretty well documented - I would call a "psychological evaluation" pretty absurd.

4) My issue? None. You e-mailed me, I replied calmly, at which point you had a bit of a tantrum.

A written defamation is libel, not slander.

Allow the challenge, less of your obfuscation.

Jock said "So what's your issue with my vaccine challenge?"

Dude! Did you even read the contract on your own website?

1) You want the participant to pay you $5000.

2) You want the participant to buy and read a bunch of very stupid and idiotic books. Then take a test to see how much of the anti-science the participant can stomach.

3) You want to participant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation (though I would love to see one done on you!).

4) You are stacking the deck to the point of idiocy.

Is that clear enough for you?

That's absolutely absurd! My God...

Hi Seenoevil,

Regarding the definition of libel. You're correct. Thank you. I love to learn. :)

Libel
"An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation, as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)."
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/7613C25C-8E5D-47A5-9E0D93B952DE16E7

Regarding "obfuscation" - I don't see how exposing Lay Scientist's untruths is obfuscation. Can you clarify?

Regards,
Jock Doubleday
director@spontaneouscreation.org

Carl, why do you call Randi a "peudoskeptic"? The JREF $1 million challenge is real and very easy to take. Just apply stating
a) What you can do, and
b) With what frequency
What could be harder than that?

Since you "love to learn", you should probably familiarize yourself with defamation law too.

There's also an amusing irony in your posturing, given that you've thrice accused me of being a liar in these same comments...

Well lets see, a look at the 2005 CDC recommended schedule shows three vaccines recommended for the 4-6 years age range plus two more vaccines if not already received prior to age two. Multiply the volume of poisons in these five vaccines times four to compensate for the weight of of an adult and the challenger would be drinking 20 times the amount of poison contained in one vaccine.

If Jock actually meant all the vaccines received prior to age six, the above becomes 30 vaccines times four making the amount of poison 120 times the amount of one vaccine.

A drink of vaccine poison of anywhere in the 20 to 120 times one vaccine's volume is clearly dangerous and possibly fatal. In this light, the requirement to both educate oneself about vaccine adverse effects and to pass a psyche evaluation is appropriate before a challenger will be allowed to harm themselves.

The purpose of Jock's challenge is to educate both the public and the medical profession but not to harm the very people who, perhaps unknowingly, are currently harming our children.

Dewey Duffel

Give us the names of those "poisons" and tell us the amounts in each vaccine, with references of where you found that information.

Also, if Jock's challenge is education the public why is he demanding a fee (no it is not a donation) of $5000?

Correction... is is a demand if some other part of the idiotic contract is not met.

But really, before anyone takes the challenge they have to subject themselves to a psychiatric evaluation, physical evaluation, read some ill written books and be subjected to an exam to see how much of the pseudoscience the challenger can regurgitate.

And if you look at the LeftBrainRightBrain link you will see that there have been case reports of people who have taken the large amounts of mercury (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8618256? ), including this fellow who ingested 85 mg/kg of thimerosal:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699562?

You must have missed the link I provided. It's titled About the James Randi Million dollar challenge and it's well worth reading. Here it is again: http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/163-About-the-James-Randi-Million-do...

If Randi devoted his time solely to exposing the countless fake psychics who prey on the gullible by using strict scientific methodology, I would commend him. Unfortunately, though, this often doesn't appear to be the case. As for the prize, if you read the commentaries in the link, you will discover, for instance, that he is in full control of the awarding of the prize money. If Mr. Randi were a true skeptic, i.e. disinterested in the results beyond determining whether they either support of do not support his hypothesis (in this case that all claims of paranormal powers are bogus), then he, as the provider of the considerable prize money, would entirely remove himself from judging the veracity of the results. He has not done this. This being the case, (and there are many other problems with the offer, as the linked material discusses) he is doing the cause of science a disservice. I'm sure that Martin would agree with me on this.

I do appreciate the question, though. It's so much better than being called a "fuckwit".

Hey, Carl! Does Randi require challengers to do all this stuff, including donating a bunch of cash!

No, HCN. Mr. Randi has his own unique list of "requirements".

Correction. I realize now that seenoevil's "fuckwit" comment wasn't directed towards me. Sorry 'bout that!

Dear Jock,

I, like most people, very much enjoy drinking poison in public, namely ethanol, a highly toxic compound which can kill or cause permanent liver & brain damage. I drink it regularly, in fact. Does this mean I'm psychotic? No, it means I'm able to tell the difference between a toxic and a non-toxic dose.

Incidentally, I accept your challenge. I'll be in touch.

Regards
NS

Yes, to win Randi's prize you have to have paranormal powers. Pretty outlandish - who can manage that?

What exactly is wrong with finding a person who is willing to

a) drink a dose of vaccine
b) sign a liability release

Have him drink the vaccine, then pay him the money when he doesn't die?

Oh, my bad...you may actualy have to pay some money then.

So why go around the question of what it's all about in the first place instead of awaiting to be validated by some fool sitting in a corner. Because according to him I must be a living dead and so must be most of us here.

I still have the records of all of those jabs I've had as a kid, then all of the jabs I had to get again as I grew up, then all of the jabs I had to take AGAIN in order to immigrate in the United States (it's mandatory). And then of all the jabs I got once I was called under the flag and had to do my military service back in France. Yes, that big one. And that's peanuts, I have friends who just like you often have to travel in the tropics and must get more jabs. I'm not even talking about those generations who had to serve in the colonies. If vaccinations are poison, how comes we are still alive then ?

Now don't tell me, it's in fact a class issue about hicks vs "them people with a passport".

Well quite - it's another absurd feature of the challenge. Any of us who travel frequently have had a whole set of vaccinations of all different shapes and sizes. I've received pretty much every mainstream vaccine going, and I've had several of them in the last couple of years. The M.D.s that he is supposedly challenging also regularly get themselves vaccinated, and their own children are vaccinated too. The idea that medical doctors secretly know that the vaccine is dangerous is simply paranoid fantasy.

Hell, why don't we see if Guinness world records would be willing to officiate on a record number of people taking the chemicals that offend Mr Doubleday so much?

I'd be game.

This is the link to the arctual rules (I am ignoring your link as I prefer going to the original source):
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

To summarize you must:
1) Actually explain in detail what you will do. It must be something that can be explained.
2) Agree in advance on the criteria including what will be considered positive or negative.
3) Outside people will do the statistical analysis.
4) Agree to let JREF use the materials.
5) No changing the rules after the procedure is agreed to (this is where many decide to quit the challenge).
6) Agree to a preliminary test close to the applicant in the presense of someone who has agreed to monitor, this is usually a local group that has the skills (approved to represent JREF). This is so the person does not have to travel to Florida.
7) Travel and other expenses are for the applicant to pay.
8) Challenger does not get to sue JREF or Randi if it doesn't go his or her way.
9) A personal check of $10000 FROM James Randi will be held by an independent person to be given immediately to the applicant if they are successful. The rest will be paid in 10 days.
...
Then the challenge has been changed, not any person can apply anymore. It is only open to a person who "First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified."

So you must be someone who claims have been reported in the media, and who has been witnessed using the claimed powers.

And it all expires in about 15 months.

Where in the Randi challenge to you see:
1) The requirement to undergo a psychiatric evaluation?
2) The requirement to buy a bunch of worthless books written by unqualified persons?
3) An exam on the anti-science in those books?
4) A demand for $5000 if part of the contract is not fulfilled?

The only things I see similar between Doubleday and Randi in their requests are:
1) Limit on who can take the challenge... Doubleday wants doctors, Randi wants those whose claims are reported in the media.
2) Requirement for the challenger to pay their own expenses. Except Doubleday's demands on required expenses go far and beyond the simple travel expenses and testing materials required by Randi.

This is the link to the arctual rules (I am ignoring your link as I prefer going to the original source):
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

... a more complete version of this post up thread..

Where in the Randi challenge to you see:
1) The requirement to undergo a psychiatric evaluation?
2) The requirement to buy a bunch of worthless books written by unqualified persons?
3) An exam on the anti-science in those books?
4) A demand for $5000 if part of the contract is not fulfilled?

The only things I see similar between Doubleday and Randi in their requests are:
1) Limit on who can take the challenge... Doubleday wants doctors, Randi wants those whose claims are reported in the media.
2) Requirement for the challenger to pay their own expenses. Except Doubleday's demands on required expenses go far and beyond the simple travel expenses and testing materials required by Randi.

No where on that link is a list of the Randi Challenge Rules. In fact, in the comments it is brought up that there is misinformation in the content posted. Which is why I went to the actual address and noticed that you were building a strawman:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

Funny, I thought the best way to educate people was to present them with facts and arguments. I guess when Aristotle wrote his great works on Rhetoric he must have spilled ink over the chapter entitled, "On Making Up A Challenge, Which No One Can Actually Enter, but which Gets Lots of Attention for Your Ideas".

Or possibly he didn't write that because it's a crap idea. I don't know, you'd have to ask him.

Go to Randi’s application form at http://www.randi.org/research/Challenge_Application.pdf
In paragraph 2, it states:

All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, so that no
judging or voting process is required.

Hmmm. Self-evident to an appointee approved by Randi? Why can’t he design a test that’s you know, scientific? For example, suppose Randi were to approve of a protocol for guessing cards, and the applicant’s guesses, although not perfect, nevertheless have a statistical probability of one in ten thousand. Would that be “self-evident” to Randi’s appointee in the informal “preliminary test” (which nobody has ever passed), or would he claim that the applicant just happened to be that one in ten thousand? How can that be decided upon if nobody judges the results?

Or suppose the applicant wants to demonstrate his remote viewing abilities? He correctly draws all three target pictures, say the Sydney Opera House, Edinburgh Castle, and the Brooklyn Bridge, but they differ in minor details from the targets. Does the remote viewer get to claim the prize? How can this be determined, indeed, how can self-evidence be determined? Whose self are we talking about here? Remember, according to Randi’s own rules, nobody can judge such matters! Furthermore, the “preliminary test”, which is not scientifically rigorous for other reasons as well, allows Randi to discard any and all results without ever having to proceed to the somewhat more rigorous actual test. So, how many people has JREF actually tested under scientifically rigorous conditions? Well, in Rule 6, Randi tells us, To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. Oh.

Mr. Randi may be a little more sophisticated than Mr. Doubleday, but in both cases the deck is stacked heavily against the person to be tested. That is my point.

Your “summary” of Rule 6 is factually incorrect, btw.

Your “summary” states:

6) Agree to a preliminary test close to the applicant in the presence of someone who has agreed to monitor, this is usually a local group that has the skills (approved to represent JREF). This is so the person does not have to travel to Florida.

Here’s the actual rule, from the web site to which you linked:

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. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test, using the agreed-upon protocol. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the completion of the preliminary test.

So you see, although your “summary” states that the rule is so the person doesn’t have to travel to Florida, we see that the rule neither states or implies such a claim. On the contrary, it clearly states, In all cases, applicants will be required to perform a preliminary test…” There are no exceptions for Florida residents, are there?

If only that were true, HCN! See my response (Sun, 01/11/2009 - 01:13). to your other comment, above.

HCN, anybody familiar with my numerous comments on TLS knows that I'm not interested in building straw men. If you believe that there is misinformation in the link I provided, you need to tell me what it is, just as I did when you provided misinformation in your "summary" of Randi's rules. If I agree that there is misinformation, I will acknowledge it, no problem, but first I have to know what it is.

Carl said "Why can’t he design a test that’s you know, scientific?"

Then it the results would be self evident.

Also, only candidates who have been witnessed performing the feat may apply. If that has happened then they could get through the sixth rule.

So I got an error in the summary. Big deal... it still does not require you to do through a psychiatric evaluation, buy and read a bunch of books and pay a $5000 for some error.

It is not equivalent, and you arguing apples versus oranges.

What part of Jock Doubleday's challenge to find more reasonable than the Randi challenge?

You are an idiot and a troll.

The misinformation is pointed in the comments of the your link. You need to read your own page.

But you have now shown to be a clueless troll, and I shall not do your reading for you.

Thanks for your gracious acknowledgment.

The two "tests" certainly are equivalent if the end result is the same, i.e. that it's all but impossible to actually go through with the challenge under scientifically controlled conditions.

The more applicants that failed to satisfy Randi's "challenge" under rigorous scientific conditions, the more plausible would be his assertions that no-body could pass his test, but as soon as one is required to pass an unscientific test under his proxy's control, (which so far has "weeded out" every last applicant over all these years!) it demonstrates that Mr. Randi doesn't really want to submit the challengers to scientific scrutiny at all. Throwing up an impenetrable firewall he calls a "preliminary test" renders Randi's challenge just as bogus Mr. Doubleday's.

Considering the enormous wealth of evidence in support of psi phenomena obtained by scientists under rigorous scientific conditions, it's hardly surprising that Mr. Randi's challenge doesn't withstand close scrutiny. His "challenge" just looks better than Mr. Doubleday's at first blush, but the devil's in the details.

None. Your point?

Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, show me where I'm wrong, HCN.

HCN, your continued refusal to provide a single example of misinformation has been duly noted. My point remains: Randi has not allowed even one person to pass through his unscientific "preliminary" firewall so that he/she can be scientifically tested.
One would think that Randi would love to demonstrate that he has scientifically tested and exposed even a single psychic, yet he never has. Why not? Because he refuses to proceed due to a barrier of his own design and under his proxy's control. How absurd! How thoroughly unscientific!

If, as you claim, I'm an "idiot", then my allegation should be easy to refute. So go ahead. I dare you.

As do I!

If Martin and Neurosceptic
are up for it, you can count me in.

This original statement of Jock's (with a note from the Lay Scientist) -

"The truth of any sentence beginning with the words "According to Ratbags..." should be taken with a grain of salt. Here's my open letter to Peter Bowditch ("Ratbags"). It has been up for over a year with no reply:

(Note: This is a lie, Peter's reply is here)"

- is followed by this incredible response:

"In an effort to quell the lies you're spreading about 1) vaccines and 2) my vaccine challenge, I'll go point by point.

1. You say that it's "a lie" that my "Open Letter to Peter Bowditch" has been up for over a year.

http://www.spontaneouscreation.org/SC/OpenLetterToPeterBowditch.htm

Actually my letter has been up for over two years, so it's not a lie. This can be confirmed by the kind folks at Hostica (hostica.com).

Now the question is: Will you and Peter admit that you have lied to the public, or will you continue your deceit of the public? Put your response here, in this blog. I don't accept emails from people who are slandering me, but I'm happy to read their answers to my challenges on their blogs. :) "

I added some formatting to bold the word "reply" and make it absolutely clear that either Jock has serious problems with reading comprehension or he is deliberately "misunderstanding" Martin's point in an attempt to make it seem as if Martin, rather than Jock, is factually incorrect. There is no way on earth that the average person would have understood Martin to be claiming that Jock's open letter had not been up for a year. It is absolutely clear that Martin was referring to the claim that there was no reply and it is absolutely clear to me (having read the reply for myself), as it will be to anyone who clicks the link themselves, that there is indeed a reply. Jock is either someone who has trouble understanding plain English or is someone so used to bullshitting that the truth means nothing to him. Neither are unusual among anti-vaccinationists - as anyone who has read threads on the JABS forum will be able to confirm.

I know, that was absolutely bizarre - Carl in the comments seems to have the same problem - this deliberate "misunderstanding" and "reinterpreting" to try and somehow twist things around to their view.

Come on Jock... - your name is getting dragged through the mud here! Fight back.

The hilarious thing is that just after he posted his first comment here, he sent me an e-mail saying:

"Can't wait to see how long my comment exposing your lies lasts on your blog."

Firstly Jock, if you're still reading, I don't censor opinion because I have nothing to hide or hide from - I certainly wouldn't make half-arsed comments about libel, for example.

But the beautiful, ironic truth of the matter is that Jock's comments here have done more to dig his own hole than anything I could have written. Before Jock it was just my opinion, now my readers get to see Jock first hand, and they all think he's a bit of a cock too!

Martin, if you disagree that Randi's million dollar challenge has never tested even a single claimant under scientific conditions because his proxies have rejected all such claims under a preliminary test lacking in scientific rigor, or if you agree this is true, but don't see a problem with it, then you need to specify either what you disagree with, and why you disagree with it, or else why you feel that there is no problem with it.

As a scientist, you know that making unsupported claims that somebody you apparently disagree with is deliberately "misunderstanding" and "reinterpreting" (what are the scare quotes for?) is beyond the pale. Why? Because it is an unsubstantiated attack on my character. Furthermore, equating me with this Jock Doubleday without justifying such a statement with some sort of actual example is frankly, a low blow. Are my feelings hurt? No, not at all. I'm merely calling you out on your "methodology".

What in the world does that have to do with vaccines?

Does the term "off topic" mean anything to you?

By the way, being really bored today, I followed your link and found that it was both old and outdated. I also searched using Google's advanced features for you and the Randi challenge, and did not find much. I looked at the website you linked to and searched for "Michael Prescott" and the Randi challenge and found precious little.

Do you have a life? (okay, in my defense I spent much mine today in an orthodontist office with middle child, almost universal wifi in my city is very nice!) But, seriously... is this what you do? You look for little teeny tiny bits of differences to pound for no apparent reason?

Not that it matters, for tomorrow my life goes back to normal and I won't be sitting in a waiting room for teenage child to come out with lots of appliances on his teeth (though he ispaying of half of it!). But I did enjoy BPSDP today.

Chris,I merely made the observation (Fri, 01/09/2009 - 22:55) that it sounds as if Doubleday has been taking lessons from pseudoskeptic James Randi along with a link. As both have put up prize money along with firewalls preventing anybody from actually taking the challenge, I thought it was a cogent, on-topic observation. Ever since, I've merely been responding to other commenters asking me to justify my position, which is fair enough, or else smearing me, which isn't. In either case, I have every right to respond. But you appear to be confused, for it is this site's defenders of Randi's challenge who are "looking for teeny tiny bits of differences to pound for no apparent reason". I, on the contrary, pointed out the similarity.

Anyway Chris, whether you believe I was off-topic (ironic, considering your remarks on your children's visit to the orthodontist) or not, Martin's snide, fact-free remarks are unwarranted and unprofessional.

I have always respected Jock for putting an open letter to me on a website, "forgetting" to tell me about it and saying on that page that I am not allowed to quote anything from it.

Well, I have my own open letter to Jock, up now at www.ratbags.com/rsoles/ Just a few simple questions, and no restrictions on where he can post the answers.

So get to it, Jock. And while you're at it, name the time and place that you want me to drink the poisons. After all, while the poisons will kill any normal person you seem to think that I am immortal and won't come to any harm. Just make sure to bring the money with you. That will be the full $75,000, of course, not the 1 cent that immortals like me get. Cash only, please - you don't think I'm going to accept a cheque from you, do you?

Carl,

I was warned, but you are making my head asplode.

The two "tests" certainly are equivalent if the end result is the same, i.e. that it's all but impossible to actually go through with the challenge under scientifically controlled conditions.

I'm just wondering, do you have any basic science or math background? My freshman year in college was when I took my first course in statistics. There are very simple, very straightforward, methods to figure out if two populations are significantly (in the statistical definition, not the lay definition) different. When something is statistically different we have a good clue that something is different than your control.

So in your 1 in ten thousand example before, we can certainly generate what the results of a random guess would give (if you have 4 cards then randomly guessing will yield correct guesses 1 in 4 time). depending on the number of trials you can determine if the guesses from the so-called 'psychic' are any better than random with a numeric confidence.

That means if you test enough times, the psychic doesnt have to be 100% correct to determine that his guesses are better than random. He could be right 50% of the time and if there were enough trials, we could determine with a confidence that he actually can predict the images on a card.

In order for the test to go through, all that would have to be agreed upon is the test condition (you know, ones where the psychic cant see the cards), the number of trials, and the confidence level (95% is normally used).

Randi doesnt require a 100% confidence (although he should), if you test 100 psychic who acheive a 95% confidence, 5 of them will still not be psychic.

Second off you are demonstrably wrong that people cant or dont get tested, randi even has videos of the tests of many of the claims.

The weeding out happens in the preliminary test because they failed to demonstrate their power. For example, the one I saw was that this woman could make anyone pee their pants when she wanted them too. She got tested. She couldnt do it. She didnt go on to the final test.

Considering the enormous wealth of evidence in support of psi phenomena

Sorry...this is coming out.... I can't hold it back.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH HAHAHA....

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, at best it can be used to explore a subject scientifically. Sheldrakes tests are all bunk for such easy reasons, in eahc case, its hilarous. For example the phone call one... he asked the person who was supposed to guess who was calling, if they guessed correctly after they picked up the phone! Come on, its a joke.

Please list any of your enormous wealth of evidence here and I'll show you why its bad, either in the way it was measured, the lack of verification that the set up or equipment was verified to function a intended or simple misinterpretation of results.

Its sad, but these sorts of errors are always there. shldrake could have saved a lot of time (and laughter) if he bothered to perform his experiments properly.

Yes, as a retired power engineer I have basic science and math. Glad you asked.

As for your discussion of statistical analysis, I don’t dispute it. Unfortunately, Randi isn’t interested in confidence, only that the results be “self-evident”: All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, so that no judging or voting process is required. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

Whereas “confidence” has meaning in statistical analysis, “self-evidence” does not. As for your claim that “Randi doesn’t require 100% confidence”, I think that you will agree that any result with < 100% confidence is not “self-evident”, ergo your claim is false.

My assertion that nobody has been tested for the $1m challenge under scientific conditions comes from Randi’s own site. In the 3rd. paragraph of the “One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge”, it states, To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

I , too, have seen videos of Randi’s “tests”, but I have no idea what the conditions were, and neither do you. Clearly they were not scientific tests conducted for claimants of the Million Dollar Challenge.

A couple of points to keep in mind: Randi is only going to show videos in which the claimant spectacularly fails in the unscientific preliminary round. We know nothing of the others. What we do know is this (from Challenge Application Rule 6): 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. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test, using the agreed-upon protocol. This statement is the basis for my assertion that the claimant is required to pass an unscientific test under his proxy's control in my previous comment. Yes, I agree with you that this is where the “weeding out” occurs, but this weeding out occurs under unscientific, potentially highly prejudicial conditions. Why so? Because the person who decides whether the evidence warrants formal (read scientific) testing to win Randi’s huge prize (and no doubt embarrass the hell out of Randi!) is a proxy working for Randi’s organization who undertakes informal (meaning unscientific) testing! Under Randi’s “rules”, I could “demonstrate” that nobody qualified to take my $1m prize for reciting the alphabet backwards! (“Sorry, but I didn’t hear you say “J”. No, you only get one try. Next!”) If you understand science, you will also understand that even with the best of intentions, such a procedure is completely incompatible with scientific methodology—yes, even a “preliminary” procedure, because it potentially prejudices the outcome. (Martin, how about a little support here?)

Once you’ve managed to get over your fit of hysteria, you might want to peruse A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi, from the European Journal of Parapsychology.
http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP%20ULT%20AP%20GB.pdf

Proof? No. Strong evidence? You decide.

Btw, who warned you about me? Why? Because I use logical analysis backed up with links to original sources? This is bad?

Look forward to your reply.

PS I searched all my previous comments, but couldn’t find any reference to Sheldrake. Were you just using him as a straw man, perhaps?

I dont have time right now, i'll write another response in a moment.

1) I talked about sheldrake because his ridiculous experiements are the ones most used for 'evidence' of psi. She we look together at your link to see how often he is referenced?

2) The test I talked about (causing someone else to urinate) is an example of self evidence. If she could not make someone else uriante on command like she claimed, what other evidence do you need to make the statement "she cant make someone urinate on command"? What test conditions? It was an easy one.

3) From the link that brought me here "(and if you don’t want your head to asplode, you may not want to read the comments on that post)" It wasnt directed at you in particular. Just some of the nonsense that crops up in these circles.

OK, I'll respond better when I get back and have a little more time and can read your links.

OK I went to that link. Can you explain to me how you glean any compelling information out of that article? All it is, is a list of papers published in woo leaning sources. It does not describe one single compelling piece of evidence in detail. None of those studies are linked for me to verify. I went to one link that was provided, and lo and behold, nothing verifiable there. They describe a test set up, and then no results. They mention that "creative people" had more hits than other people. Completely letting the term 'creative' be subjective (aren't you creative? Who isnt?), and not saying how many hits they got relative to guessing randomly. The whole test is done with subjective interpretation if something is a hit or not. Other links were broken and went no where, or in a language I can't read. I went ot the The Journal of
the American Society for Psychical Research...no linked papers, just abstracts. Have you paid for any of these so called journals? Any of the articles. you are you just content reading happy conclusions from a compendium?

I told you sheldrake would be in there, and I have explained why sheldrakes experiments are bunk, specifically. Am I now to believe that these other experiments (the huge majority of which are so old its funny) are somehow done in a more controlled and strict fashion?

The funniest part was when they reported that the p value for a meta study was 10^-41. This shows complete ignorance in how you use metastudies.

Its amazing to me that you don't see the glaring problems with all that nonsense. Were these poeple D&D fans as kids and want so desperately to have magic powers that they will go through these lengths to pretend that they do?

"I think that you will agree that any result with < 100% confidence is not “self-evident”, ergo your claim is false."

No I will not agree to that. Why not just throw out all of statistics? If someone is guessing 50% correctly on which of 4 cards is selected after 100 trials, it is self evident that something is going on there. This never happens without fraud. Please show me one single case where this is accomplished without potential for fraud.

Water dowsers cant find water when they arent in areas where there is always water. Psychics can't make verifiable predictions that are specific enough to claim hits. Every time woo gets tested properly, the power of woo disappears. so instead the woo meisters stick with pilot studies and stay clear of any blinding. It makes the results work much better.

Thanks for the laugh.

You are right. The link I provided really wasn’t very good, as it did little more than provide somebody’s overview of the state of psi research in 2003. Actually, my belief in psi phenomena isn’t based on scientific research, but rather personal experience, or more accurately, several experiences. Such personal experiences don’t constitute a scientific argument, of course, so we’ll leave the point moot, for it’s a red herring, anyway.

The central point of contention is whether or not Randi’s Million Dollar Psychic Challenge is scientific, or whether the unscientific “preliminary testing” as defined in his rules can be used as a firewall, thus accounting for the generally little-known fact that, nobody has actually taken his challenge under scientific conditions.

Your prior allegations notwithstanding, it is a fact that nobody has actually taken the challenge—Randi’s organization admits as much on its website.

It’s also a fact that if any part of an experiment that has the potential to affect the outcome is done under less than scientific conditions, the entire experiment is rendered unscientific.

As the “preliminary” testing is conducted and judged by an appointee of Randi’s organization (and significantly, the challenge’s rules don’t provide for agreement on the tester by both parties) under “informal” conditions, it is clear that this preliminary stage of the procedure has the potential to eliminate a worthy challenger from further consideration. One doesn’t even need to argue that this has occurred. The flaw is in the design of the experiment, regardless of how it is conducted.

I must say that I find that such an obvious, fundamental design flaw exists in an experiment meant to scientifically establish the evidence (or lack there-of) for psychic ability in people who claim to possess such ability, quite remarkable, particularly as it comes from an organization represented by a man who spends a great deal of time criticizing the design of parapsychologists’ experiments! Why would a person who genuinely believed in the total absence of psi phenomena design an experiment with such a flaw? What has been the result? Well, as you now know, apparently not a single one of the appointees from Randi’s organization has ever given the go-ahead for a challenger to be scientifically tested, even though it would be expected that Randi would welcome such testing and the publicity it would bring his “debunking” cause. Oh, yes, only assuming that the results would be negative, that is. Hmm.

___________________

If someone is guessing 50% correctly on which of 4 cards is selected after 100 trials, it is self evident that something is going on there.

“I, as Randi’s proxy, point out that this could possibly have been due to chance, so I’m very sorry to inform you that you have failed the requirement that the results must be self-evident and not judged. Next!” Of course, it could have been due to chance, so he’s quite right. Unreasonable? Absolutely, but then the design of the experiment is unreasonably designed in such a way that it permits such biased (though technically correct) pronouncements.

Please link me to where you got that quote from so I can get the whole context. That is a perfectly valid statement if the confidence interval is low. Or were just just making a strawman and no one ever said that?

Maybe you should link me to a specific example where you think someone was unfairly disqualified, or where the test was unfairly designed so that the person being tested felt it was unfair and chose not to proceed. Because if there really isnt one, and its simply due to the fact that blinding gets rid of a lot of nonsense, then I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Personal psi anecdotes or not.

I don't engage in straw man arguments, TechSkeptic. The quote I gave was my own, which I thought was obvious. I provided it as an example of what could occur under Randi's flawed test design.

You call yourself a skeptic. Fair enough, then you shouldn't be demanding an example of where someone was unfairly disqualified, as it's merely enough that I demonstrate (as I have) that it could occur under Randi's rules for the preliminary testing. (There are indeed examples of such allegations to be found on the web, but it's irrelevant, so I haven't bothered to link.) I find it odd that you're so concerned with issues of fraud and shortcomings of test design when it comes to parapsychologists who appear to have demonstrated psi phenomena, but apply an entirely different standard when somebody is purportedly concerned with disproving psi phenomena. Much like Randi himself, it seems.

The example I gave wasn't meant to be taken as an example of fraud,but rather as an example of the examiner sticking to a literal interpretation of Randi's actual rules, i.e. that the results be "self-evident" (Dictionary.com: evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic). That Randi appears to mean such a literal interpretation is reinforced by the rule that there be "no judgment" of the results. Both these points were illustrated in my example, which was its sole purpose.

I don't engage in straw man arguments, TechSkeptic.

Maybe not (everyone does, usually they just need them pointed out), but you sure do seem to like Arguments to an authority where you are the authority.

You seem to be under the impression that only you can predict what the result of "self evident" means, but you are simply incapable of showing a single instance where what your say will happen actually happens, despite the fact that hundreds of people have entered the challenge.

You call yourself a skeptic. Fair enough, then you shouldn't be demanding an example of where someone was unfairly disqualified,

What?!? That is exactly what a skeptic does! He asks for evidence for a claim, as he should. You are trying to make a claim that randi unfairly rejects people from the challenge, and I am asking you to provide a single example of where that happens. Your twisted interpretation of what you think he means by self evident is completely irrelevant unless you have some evidence to show that this is what is happening.

You are not saying that people could be rejected, you are trying to say that they are, which is why you think the Randi challenge is a fraud. Not that is could be a fraud.

who appear to have demonstrated psi phenomena
Maybe that was more well said than I first htought when I read it. The purpose of the challenge is to show that appearingto be some magic psi phenomena is vastly different and actually being psi phenomena.

TechSkeptic Fri, 01/16/2009 - 22:42: Sheldrakes tests are all bunk for such easy reasons, in eahc case, its hilarous. For example the phone call one... he asked the person who was supposed to guess who was calling, if they guessed correctly after they picked up the phone! Come on, its a joke.

Here you are you calling Sheldrake’s tests (note the plural) all bunk based on your allegation that a person engaged in his test could have cheated, given the way the test was conducted. You provide no evidence that anybody did in fact cheat.

Fair enough, TechSkeptic, if Sheldrake conducted this particular test in such a manner as to allow cheating, then it is unscientific, or “bunk” if you will. I fully agree. But I note Mr. Sheldrake’s apparent design oversight in this test (without any evidence that cheating in fact occurred) was enough to laughingly dismiss Mr. Sheldrake’s entire body of work! Merely the fact that he had a design flaw in one test is enough for you to proclaim that all his tests are “all bunk”

Mr. Randi, however, who as a “professional debunker” is highly critical of the testing methodology used by parapsychologists (and thus would be expected to use flawless methodology himself), is quite another matter. Here it isn’t enough to point out a serious design flaw in his Million Dollar Psychic Challenge rules. Now I must prove that at least one tester cheated. Well, as I told you before, science doesn’t work that way. If it did, I would say to you that you are wrong to dismiss Mr. Sheldrake because his methodology allowed for cheating--you have to prove that it actually occurred. That position is “all bunk”, my friend.

Here’s a series of articles on Randi’s “challenge” discussing just how badly the deck is stacked against the applicant:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_ch...

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_ch...

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_ch...

In addition to my comments below regarding your apparent concern with cheating: The more important point is that Randi's appointee doesn't need to cheat. He needs merely follow the rules of the "challenge" in order to "fail" somebody who could well have demonstrated psychic ability beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Well, among other reasons, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is somewhat short of "self-evident".

Sigh, did you even read those articles?

Its the same blob you are trying to put forward. If you think someting went on unfairly, then you should have no problem producing a single trial that went on unfairly. Where is it?

Or is your argument pure conjecture?

I on the other hand showed you a specific way in which Shaldrake's experiment was bad, how it was not done properly. It doesnt even have to be fraudulent on the part of the person who took the test. He may actually have thought of all four possible callers when the phone rang, so when asked he can honestly say he got the right one.

The point of the trials in both randi and what Sheldrake should have done is to try to prove the null hypothesis. Designing and performing tests that are guaranteed to provide positives is simply a waste of everyones time.

Please point to the test that was done at JREF that was performed incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly.

(From bottom of thread below):
TechSkeptic, I don’t “think something went on unfairly”. Rather, I maintain anybody who proceeds under Randi’s test rules is being tested under conditions inherently biased against the applicant’s attempt to demonstrate an alleged psychic phenomenon.

To reiterate just one example, the criterion that the result be “self-evident” is non-scientific and highly subjective (“self-evident” to whom?), and constitutes an all-but impossible hurdle. As I’ve already mentioned, even in a criminal trial, the proof standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But that isn’t good enough for Randi. Hell, even evolution, perhaps the most thoroughly supported of all scientific theories, isn’t “self-evident” to millions of people.

You are trying to argue that no matter how flawed and biased the design of a test, it is perfectly acceptable and scientific unless one can prove that fraud took place. Well, TechSkeptic, you are just flat-out wrong. Go read some peer reviews some time.

See my comment on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 09:18 at the top of this thread.

Correction: Fraud notwithstanding, it is not necessary to prove that a test was performed incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly if it can be shown (as I have done) that the testing procedure itself is inherently flawed.

Okay, although not needed to prove my point, here's a description of a man who tried to demonstrate that he could live without food.

http://www.thothweb.com/article-print-2213.html

Now this is something that would be rather easy to prove or disprove, but that wasn't Randi's objection, anyway. Rather it is that the gentleman making the claim is a "liar", and so is told not to waste Randi's time. Well, this simply doesn't compute. Randi rejects all claims to supernormal abilities, thus he must believe that all claimants are liars, or at best deluded. Or are we to believe that Randi sincerely wants to discover a genuine psychic or paranormal? You think? The long and short of it is that the grounds Randi himself gave for rejecting this man's application, i.e. that he must be a "liar", don't withstand scrutiny. Randi is, as the link claims, "running away".

This isn't a case of an "unfair procedure", but rather an "unfair non-procedure", (a not uncommon occurrence) which amounts to exactly the same thing. There. Happy now?

http://www.thothweb.com/article-print-2213.html

Good idea... the text boxes were getting skinny!

Rather, I maintain anybody who proceeds under Randi’s test rules is being tested under conditions inherently biased against the applicant’s attempt to demonstrate an alleged psychic phenomenon.

Hmm.. you seem to be under the impression that disproving the null hypothesis is the same thing as having a bias against the claim. Sorry, that is the way that science is done. It is the best way we have of knowing. You are confusing rigor with bias.

Self evident simply means "not open to interpretation". If someone claims they can manipulate clouds, then it is not self evident if a cloud disperses that the dude did it or not. However self evidence simply comes with showing a quantifiable prediction, and that predicition doesnt even have to be 100% right all the time.

If the measurement is %cloud depletion in x number of minutes as measured by satellite, or some such thing, then self evidence comes simply from the fact the interpretation has been eliminated.

It does not have to be fraud, or at least not intentional fraud. For example, placebo is not intentional but it happens with every single medical treatment. So, to show that a treatment is actually effective and not simply a matter of personal interpretation, they blind the test and use a control. Pow! self evidence can arise and interpreation can go away. If ther eis a significant difference it will show and we do not have to worry about interpretation. This is why CAM and psi LOVE unblinded and uncontrolled tests! There are simply more positives.

You are trying to argue that no matter how flawed and biased the design of a test, it is perfectly acceptable and scientific unless one can prove that fraud took place.

I thought you said you don't engage in strawman arguments. I told you everyone does. It just needs to be pointed out.

That is not what I said. I said you are responsible for showing the flaw, like I did for the sheldrake test. In the sheldrake test, all they really had to change was when the telepath called out who the caller was and it would habe been a better test. If you can not find flaw, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist, it means that we accept the test data as is, until you do. Now will you please show me a single randi test that was flawed in its execution, not your supposition. Conversely show me a single blinded or controlled (or better yet both) psi test, with methodology that is not prone to fraud, intentional or unintentional.

Ball is in your court and will stay there until you provide evidence.

Sigh, Randi is very clear why he wont accept this claim (not in that link). The person has to be dead to prove him wrong. If he passes out, and they revive him, he will still have shown he can live without food. Further if you bothered to read the comments of the JREF members in your previous 3 links, you will see what really happened in this case. the guy was being a jerk.

Interesting that neither of the links on that page work, there is no way to see the original letter for exactly what he was claiming. But, no you presume it was Randi who was the one being ridiculous.

And it IS a stupid claim. I would definitely say this was not needed to prove your point, not even desirable. Is this really the best evidence of randi's fraud so-called psi's have?

It is illegal to host a contest in bad faith. That gets you sued. Why has Randi not been successfully sued for the 1 million? Any lawyer would happily take his 1/3 of that giving a free $666K to any psychic. Vast conspiracy of skeptics in the judicial system?

Yes, as I feared, if I provided the unnecessary example you insistently demanded, you would attack it, rather than my actual arguments, so now I must counter your frivolous attack. Here we go:

TechSkeptic: The person has to be dead to prove him wrong. If he passes out, and they revive him, he will still have shown he can live without food.

Dead wrong. They merely had to agree to a pre-agreed length of time, say a month. S/he could be locked in a room with video cameras and permitting direct observation. The room would have nothing but a supply of water, a scale, a chamber pot, and attached medical monitors. A medical doctor would be in attendance or on call. If s/he lost more than a small pre-agreed amount of weight, the “breatharian” would lose the challenge in short order. Something similar to this was already done in 1999. The ‘breatharian”, Jasmaheen, failed, btw.

Oddly enough, in 2005 Randi offered to overlook his prohibition in Jasmaheen’s case (after she had already failed the 1999 “60 Minutes” test!) and test her. Oh. So according to you, Randi was prepared to let her die? I think not.

TechSkeptic: Interesting that neither of the links on that page work, there is no way to see the original letter for exactly what he was claiming. But, no you presume it was Randi who was the one being ridiculous.

Randi’s email has been removed from the source. However, according to http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-jamesrandi.htm, which tells us it is “A Home On The Internet For Positive Humanists, Atheists…” etc., Randi has admitted to writing it (See under Criticisms).

Techskeptic: And it IS a stupid claim.

Randi’s challenge is made in order to prove or disporove a claimant’s psychic ability. Neither you nor Randi believe in any psychic phenomena, ergo all such claims are “stupid” (or dishonest) in your and Randi’s opinion. Therefore, alleging the claim is “stupid” can’t be used as a rationale for rejecting the claimant.

TechSkeptic: It is illegal to host a contest in bad faith. That gets you sued.

Rule 8 of the Agreement (See www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html ) states:

When entering into this challenge, as far as this may be done by established legal statutes, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and/or against any persons peripherally involved, and/or against the James Randi Educational Foundation. This applies to injury, and/or accident, and/or any other damage of a physical and/or emotional nature, and/or financial and/or professional loss, and/or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize, once it is properly won in accord with the protocol.

Btw, “bad faith” is your term, not mine. I merely allege that elements of Randi’s rules, such as “self-evident” are vague, unscientific, open to interpretation, and set the bar unreasonably high. As I previously mentioned, even evolution isn’t “self-evident” to many!

Yes, as I feared, if I provided the unnecessary example you insistently demanded, you would attack it, rather than my actual arguments, so now I must counter your frivolous attack. Here we go:

TechSkeptic: The person has to be dead to prove him wrong. If he passes out, and they revive him, he will still have shown he can live without food.

Dead wrong. They merely had to agree to a pre-agreed length of time, say a month. S/he could be locked in a room with video cameras and permitting direct observation. The room would have nothing but a supply of water, a scale, a chamber pot, and attached medical monitors. A medical doctor would be in attendance or on call. If s/he lost more than a small pre-agreed amount of weight, the “breatharian” would lose the challenge in short order. Something similar to this was already done in 1999. The ‘breatharian”, Jasmaheen, failed, btw.

Oddly enough, in 2005 Randi offered to overlook his prohibition in Jasmaheen’s case (after she had already failed the 1999 “60 Minutes” test!) and test her. Oh. So according to you, Randi was prepared to let her die? I think not.

TechSkeptic: Interesting that neither of the links on that page work, there is no way to see the original letter for exactly what he was claiming. But, no you presume it was Randi who was the one being ridiculous.

Randi’s email has been removed from the source. However, according to http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-jamesrandi.htm, which tells us it is “A Home On The Internet For Positive Humanists, Atheists…” etc., Randi has admitted to writing it (See under Criticisms).

Techskeptic: And it IS a stupid claim.

Randi’s challenge is made in order to prove or disporove a claimant’s psychic ability. Neither you nor Randi believe in any psychic phenomena, ergo all such claims are “stupid” (or dishonest) in your and Randi’s opinion. Therefore, alleging the claim is “stupid” can’t be used as a rationale for rejecting the claimant.

TechSkeptic: It is illegal to host a contest in bad faith. That gets you sued.

Rule 8 of the Agreement (See www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html ) states:

When entering into this challenge, as far as this may be done by established legal statutes, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and/or against any persons peripherally involved, and/or against the James Randi Educational Foundation. This applies to injury, and/or accident, and/or any other damage of a physical and/or emotional nature, and/or financial and/or professional loss, and/or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize, once it is properly won in accord with the protocol.

Btw, “bad faith” is your term, not mine. I merely allege that elements of Randi’s rules, such as “self-evident” are vague, unscientific, open to interpretation, and set the bar unreasonably high. As I previously mentioned, even evolution isn’t “self-evident” to many!

Okay, so I can guess playing cards in sealed, light-proof envelopes. I apply for the challenge, and we haggle as to protocol. Eventually, I reluctantly agree that the criterion for success will be that I correctly guess 8 cards out of 10. That, JREF deems, is what they require to demonstrate “self-evidence”. The test proceeds, and I get 7 right. Randi publicizes the fact that I failed the test. And he’d be quite right in this hypothetical example. Furthermore I failed under a protocol that I agreed to. All well and good. What does it prove? Nothing, actually. However, despite my failing under the agreed-to protocol, most people would conclude that my results were in fact highly evidential for the existence of psi. You see, the problem is that the demonstration of psi phenomena under tens of thousands of controlled tests tend to show only a relatively small, but nevertheless significant psi factor. I am quite sure that Randi knows this. (Btw, psi is merely the designation for a range of phenomena as yet not understood, much as astronomers use the terms “dark matter” and “dark energy”. It should not be confused with the oxymoronic religious term “supernatural”.)

Your cloud manipulation example is poor. Randi quite correctly won’t test for it, as such a claim would be virtually impossible to test.

This is why CAM and psi LOVE unblinded and uncontrolled tests! There are simply more positives. I have no idea who CAM is, and psi is a group of phenomena, thus this unsupported statement is nonsense. Although your claims are off-topic, I'll note that several parapsychologists have used the noted “skeptic” Ray Hyman to critique and help refine their methodology? In fact, due to relentless criticism from “skeptics”, nowadays parapsychologists generally have an extremely high standard of methodology. Many routinely use double blinds.

At what point do psi phenomena become “not open to interpretation”? I have no idea. I firmly believe in the fundamentals of evolution, and have excellent reasons for that belief, but I can’t prove it. Proof is a mathematical, not scientific concept. Thus, evolution, like psi phenomena, is “open to interpretation”. I wonder if Randi believes in evolution?

Why do you ask me to show you a single blinded or controlled (or better yet both) psi test, with methodology that is not prone to fraud, intentional or unintentional.? Why are you trying to divert the discussion away from Randi’s challenge? I have already given my position on this, but here you bring it up again. It’s WAY OFF TOPIC.

By the way, your comments notwithstanding, “self-evident” is an unscientific absolute that has nothing to do with the null hypothesis. Where are you dredging this stuff up?

Finally, TechSkeptic, you clearly do not agree that the provision of evidence that the ground rules for a test to determine the legitimacy of a claim are unscientific and biased is legitimate criticism. That you are profoundly wrong goes without saying, and is clear evidence that rather than being a true skeptic open to any reasonable position, you are a died-in-the-wool pseudoskeptic, wedded to the nonexistence of psi phenomena as a matter of faith. And like so many pseudoskeptics, stage magician The Amazing Randi is one of your gurus. Sad.

Sorry for the duplication. I was told I'd entered a wrong "Captcha", but it apparently posted anyway.

Can you direct me to a site detailing the actual parameters and conduct of the $1000,000 challenge preliminary tests, so that I can directly assess them as you demand? No? Well, it shouldn't surprise you that I don't have access either, so why do you keep demanding that I find fault with specific tests, when I have already directed you to specific problems with the rules of conductof these tests?

Are you suggesting that the tests were actually conducted under different rules? No? So how does my pointing out that Randi's methodology is flawed any different in principle than you pointing out that Sheldrake's test was flawed in its execution?

This is not convenient. I wrote a post on some of this.... we can take it up there where the comments dont get thinner. Its been a while, so I dont know if you are still around

Providing a bad example doesn't doesnt make your claim stronger it makes it weaker. If I say I can move a mountain, and you say "prove it" and I show up with a shovel and tell you if I start digging, I have not proved my claim and I have given you a bad example "proving" that I can.

This is common. In a discussion once with someone who bleeived in God, I asked for evidence (of course) and he came back with healing miracles (i have forgotton the saint and place unfortunately).

I pointed out that millions of people visit that shrine every year, and yet only 2 have gotten inexplicably healed? How si this a miracle? The same happens in hospitals and in bads a homes all ove the world! So in asking for proof of god he came back with a piece of bad evidence like you did. I am unsure of why I should just accept it as good evidence.

As for the example, you are correct, we could wait a month or a week, he doesnt have to die. After hitting submit I realized that a test could be done if both parties agreed that a month could pass and the guy would be disqualified if any effects of starvation became evident.

Turns out Randi HAD already done a test like this (or didnt you read the link?). Further according to you and that link that Jasmaheen, also had already tried and failed to do the same thing. I wonder how many times we have to test the exact same thing before everyone agrees: you need to eat.

but I'll certainly agree, it would have been better if Randi had wasted his time and tested that guy also.

Still I dont see how any of this takes away from the challenge over all.

Just because I don't beleive something doesn't mean that it isnt in fact true. What makes something true, is evidence. So knowing that Randi has in fact tested 650 people, in preliminary tests that have been approved both by randi's folks (and mostly not randi himself) AND by the applicant tells me that people simply can't do what they claim they can do.

The difference between this and Doubleday is that people can't get through Doubledays administrative procedures that is a far cry from not being able to get through actual testing of a claim or actual agreement on how you test a claim.

I'm not sure what you are pointing out in your quote about suing. None of that relates to holding a contest in bad faith (meaning never intending to give out the money). You complaint about "self evident" is really a non-issue since the applicant are agreeing to the test procedures. If he wrote "statistically significant", would you feel better about it?