James Randi is an idiot!!

Originally posted by A Fortiori
In the case I was referring to was a preliminary investigation by a university that was in its nascent stages and Randi snarked and said it needed double blind, etc. Well, it was preliminary where a protocol was being formulated (and may not have even gone forward in that form as a protocol).


You do not invest limited research dollars in a double blind until you are at the point where one is necessary.

Allow me to interject for a moment. It's a bit hard to understand the specific case you are referring to without seeing all the details for myself. However, one could just interpret it as Randi suggesting use of a double-blind if the investigation led to full research. Perhaps even the preliminary protocol would benefit as double-blind is used to prevent outcomes from being 'influenced' by the placebo effect or observer bias. Depending on the type of investigation and protocol it may not be as expensive as you think and may save even more financially and mentally Also, a police photo lineup is a great example of applying the double blind methodology in preliminary stages of an investigation. Food for thought.

For the alchemists and voodoo curse people I am sure that a double blind is just fine. For people studying prescience of children and animals prior to natural disaster a double blind would not be necessary until later in the process.

Perhaps you can explain your reasoning as to why would set would be suitable for a double-blind and the other set not? It just takes a bit of careful planning and suitable methodology.

But you see, you don't have experiments like that. Institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and universities don't have people seeking to "prove" their claims--probably because they don't get a million dollars to be part of an anonymous human subject population. It starts with people brainstorming/theorizing and then seeking a volunteer population.

orly? Big pharma don't have people seeking to "prove" their claims i.e. new pharmaceutical treatment or modality? Then why the need for multiple oversight committees?

I think this is a "language" barrier.

I'm not sure why. English is my first language, and if it's not yours you don't show it.

You do not invest limited research dollars in a double blind until you are at the point where one is necessary.

I'm not even sure what this has to do with my comment. To try to stay on point, you take issue with JREF bias. Double-blind, even for a "contest" or I would call simply a "test," is a method to reduce bias. That's all I'm saying.

I've said this once, others have said it, and I will only say it one more time: Double-blind reduces the effect of bias on the outcome of the experiment.

Have I said otherwise????

In fact you did:

Double blinding reduces bias.

No, it reduces risk.

It was the "No..." that I found objectionable.

For people studying prescience of children and animals prior to natural disaster a double blind would not be necessary until later in the process.

I have read some compelling arguments for why double-blind is valuable even when researching prescience in children and animals (in general, not specifical to natural disasters), because it is still very subjective. An adult has to analyze the actions of the subject, and it is generally not quantitative research but more qualitative. Since this isn't an area I myself have spent much time, I'll leave it at that.

Institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and universities don't have people seeking to "prove" their claims--probably because they don't get a million dollars to be part of an anonymous human subject population. It starts with people brainstorming/theorizing and then seeking a volunteer population.

We may have to agree to disagree, because you will not convince me given what I know of researchers and subjects in the psi field. You have researchers (in any field) seeking to prove their hypothesis and get published. You have subjects going to these institutions to prove their claims. You may think not getting a million dollars is reason for subjects to be honest, but it's not. Imagine the the profits from having your paranormal claims substantiated by scientists! Reason enough for the greedy to be less than honest, even in a clinical setting.

reply to post by A Fortiori


I agree that it is difficult to use discernment for some of these cases but once you take the time to do a bit of investigation and understand motivations, things become a bit easier to see. It's an unfortunate thing that groups such as the Association for Skeptical Investigation are created with the sole purpose of disrupting the investigations of another. It's a sign of the times I guess. You see similar behaviour among religious sects that wish to promote their worldview by setting up organizations that misuse or misrepresent science.

The Max Frei-Sulzer case is interesting but I'm not quite sure why you brought it up. As I mentioned above there are motivations for certain groups and unfortunately many times it is left for us to investigate what the truth of the matter is. Well isn't that being skeptical

Someone, anyone! who can provide irrefutable evidence of any human having psychic "power" and who is on record as having produced psychic results strictly with details, not general mumbo jumbo as Ingo Swann and every other self-proclaimed "psychic" or "remote viewer" (ha!), comes up with, please do so. I'd love to know who. No generalizations, please. We can all do that. The "psychic" results have to be SPECIFIC! Dates, times, events, etc. Not after the fact but before the fact.

I "predict" no one will be able to offer a single name.

reply to post by Skeptical Ed


Sorry, are we still on the thread topic of Randi being an idiot?

SkepticalEd rants:

Someone, anyone! who can provide irrefutable evidence of any human having psychic "power"

And here we go again, Ed wants evidence which cannot be subject to debate and interpretation, he wants proof (not "evidence") which literally hits him in the face.

In sort, typical pseudo-skeptic drivel with no real scientific relevance. Ed does not care about science or evidence, he does not care about an investigation which could produce interesting results. He only cares about peddling his own brand of metaphysics.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by jclmavg]

reply to post by 1llum1n471


Replying to Baklava, too...

1) When I stated that "double blind" reduces risk, not bias what I meant was:

A research scientist doesn't think "I will reduce my own bias" because most often we feel we're pretty unbiased (that may not be the case tho). We think how do we reduce "risk" to our research. Meaning, how do we prove to others that we are on the right path, that our protocol is sound, that we deserve more money, and that we are not biased (but that goes under protocol is sound,) etc.

If the topic is controversial we will produce a double blind during research to ensure to our funders that we have reduced the risk.

Risk can be "biased results". Risk can be "wrong tools". Risk can be "wrong volunteer populations". Risk can be safety.

Most double blind in human subject research is to ensure to the IRB, to the funders, etc that we have done our best to adhere to the Belmont Principles, that the research has been necessary, and that we are doing our best to get to the truth.

2) Why I said that in the case of the University of Arizona that the double blind was unnecessary when Randi said it was necessary is because the PI had clearly stated that he was still formulating his protocol and was in the assumption phase.

3) When I said we were not "speaking the same language" I will give you an example from "software development" as a lot of people are more familiar with that.

"System" can be a physical "system", IE "This brand new system is able to run at light speed", OR
"System" can be "application", IE "The system shall..."

I was not insulting you by implying that you don't speak the language. I was stating that we were not speaking the same "language".

IF you thought I was insulting you I do apologize because I hate rudeness.

I mean simply, when you say it is about being fair, that is "true", but "fair" is really an ethical term. You wouldn't "use" fair in math as math is implied as already fair.

I was trying to bring us to the same terms, not disagree with you and as I reread I think that you were thinking that it was disagreement. Yes, it should be fair. But more they do it to reduce risk or negative consequences to the study.

Funding is hard to come by and it requires measures to reduce risk.

Do you see what I mean?

4) Research does not, rather should not, set out to humiliate its human subjects--in fact, human subjects are protected by research. They have "rights".

I am almost 100% certain that what Randi does cannot be called "research" or "scientific method" in the fine print because in doing so he is violating laws that govern how human research is conducted.

ohsr.od.nih.gov...

Their identities are not protected (because it is a contest, not an experiment), their integrity and intellect is ridiculed, etc. This is not science.

In fact, this is why people say that "Randi is an idiot" because he acts in ways that are cruel and shameful and justifies it by stating that he is giving it back to the hucksters. Well, how about the people that maybe were picked on their whole life, suddenly find that they can know when a storm is approaching or think the voices they hear are dead people and suddenly they feel "special"? Is it nice to presume because they took this belief and touted it that they are likewise trying to take money from others?

Or what about those that are mentally ill who believe they were abducted by aliens, they you call them liars every chance you get?

That is not scientific. It is wrong because Randi cannot know their motives unless he is psychic.

There are ethics in science, and I don't mean the double blind.

5) This is a contest. It is not research and shouldn't be viewed as such. They might very well take "double blind" methods and produce a test, but that test is not repeated over and over and over as it would be in a volunteer population. Therefore, it isn't really the same.

Example, the man dowsing for gold. They figured out how to produce a "blind" test and he did it twice. Their statement of double blind was that neither he nor Randi knew where the "gold" was and that he was able to point out areas that could not have gold in them.

Now, this is certainly a "fair" test of that individual's ability to dowse for gold.

However, dousing for Gold means you are taking possibly hundreds of dowsers and do the same under their "blind" test, record results, then repeat using a test that contains unknowns selected by those conducting double-blind.

A single individual's inability to do something on command does not prove anything, even if he agreed to it. Just like in football you have a quarterback's stats for the year. The research is multiple occasions or multiple individuals or multiple individuals on multiple occasions.

My fear is that people take a contest and suggest it is scientific. It is a good experiment that may help to formulate a hypothesis, but it is not research and he is not a scientist.

6) Money.

Someone misread what I stated.

No, I don't think that "money" keeps people honest. I think it is the opposite. If you offered $1 million dollars to people to participate in a study if they have a disease they would probably go get the disease to participate in the study. Or if you offered them the chance at $1 million to participate in a psi study you would get individuals that remembered the time they knew who was calling them on the phone and applied.

I was stating the opposite.

Lastly, I want to say that how we approach each other is unhelpful. I have tried to kid -- I even got to the point where I threw in icons because I saw it was getting heated. Treating each other with contempt helps no one.

Tesla was considered a total nutjob in his lifetime. He had his patents lifted. His ideas were ridiculed. And now we think he was a genius and a nutjob.

We should treat each other with the respect given to those we agree with.

Someone misread what I stated.

No, I don't think that "money" keeps people honest.

I stated, "You may think not getting a million dollars is reason for subjects to be honest, but it's not." This was a direct response to your comment, "Institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and universities don't have people seeking to "prove" their claims--probably because they don't get a million dollars to be part of an anonymous human subject population." I really don't know if you're just not reading and missing important words that change the entire context (like "not") or if you're doing this intentionally. But between repurposing your own words and misrepresenting mine, I'm done. I've been more than respectful; however, I don't find it is useful to the discussion debating with someone who debates like a politician. kthxbye

reply to post by A Fortiori


Quick replies as it's the weekend

1. You perhaps are addressing the question given your personal experience but is that applicable to other cases? Research bias is a fact of life and double-blind helps in that regard. You present a very academic view of how things should and should not work, but fail to see flaws that arise from the "in the trenches" work.

2. Once again, it's hard for me to judge the exact situation without seeing it, but I think my conclusion mentioned above could be just as valid as yours.

3. I appreciate your efforts to help us understand each other's use of terminology. That's always a huge issue with discussions. I hope I have returned the favour.

4. Yes, what Randi does in terms of the JREF is not scientific research and I'm sure I or anyone else did not claim that. They are not following strict scientific protocols. You're resorting to emotional appeals to prove your point here and we've already discussed your, my, and several other poster's opinions on this. Yes, there are ethics but perhaps you need to brush up on Scientific ethics, it's a bit different from moral ethics.

5. We've already covered these points. These are individuals that apparently can manifest their paranormal abilities at whim and are asked before, during, and after about their so called power to make sure the switch is on. As some others have said, statistically speaking, should there not have been at least one person with paranormal abilities to demonstrate their power with a significantly higher rate than chance allows? Even just looking at the subset that Randi and the JREF have had for their contests... I've already addressed the other cases of randomness and don't really want to get into the whole "but but synchronicity" type of affair.

Now now, not sure how you came up with the contempt bit. I've used by fair share of emoticons and can't help my sarcastic side from getting out every now and then. Why so serious?

Tesla - The Man, the Myth, the Legend. I think there's quite a bit of a difference between Tesla and some of these hucksters that have accepted the JREF challenge. Maybe in a few decades we'll look back at Randi and have the same reverence for Randi and think his genius was ahead of it's time. Probably by then science as we know it may once again be swept away by religion, Ancient Greek style.

You stated:

Originally posted by Baklava

I stated, "You may think not getting a million dollars is reason for subjects to be honest, but it's not."

The above implies that people will be be dishonest without money as a factor, and therefore I responded with:

"No, I don't think that "money" keeps people honest."

I was acknowledging your point, and clarifying my own. You have a problem with that?

I was originally stating that money is an incentive to most people to attempt what they perhaps cannot do in hopes of walking away with a bundle of cash (aka "Fear Factor), and university studies do not pay a million dollars therefore the type of people who are attracted to those studies are of a different caliber than would accept the Randi challenge.

You are "anonymous" in a University study, therefore fame is out of the question. You don't get rich from a University study, so making a huge wad of money is also out of the question.

That is all I was saying.

As for:

I really don't know if you're just not reading and missing important words that change the entire context (like "not") or if you're doing this intentionally.

I'd ask the same, but since you're "not talking to me anymore..."

But between repurposing your own words and misrepresenting mine, I'm done.

...and there was much rejoicing

I've been more than respectful;

Define "respectful"

however, I don't find it is useful to the discussion debating with someone who debates like a politician. kthxbye

Great! Thanks!

[edit on 17-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Quick replies as it's the weekend

1. You perhaps are addressing the question given your personal experience but is that applicable to other cases? Research bias is a fact of life

Of course it is, you believe in your research otherwise you would not attempt to research it.

and double-blind helps in that regard.

I've never said otherwise. Please read what I said about when a double blind is useful.

You present a very academic view of how things should and should not work, but fail to see flaws that arise from the "in the trenches" work.

Hmm. *thinking it over*

I do see problems in research. We have "unanticipated problems", "adverse events", and "serious adverse events" in research, so, of course, there will always be research conducted that falls into error, but that is why there is a process.

All research must undergo: "peer review" and/or "scientific review" and "statistical review" all prior to submission to an IRB, and then there is "IRB" review and approval, IRB reviews, and then "oversight" review of the IRB.

Not only that, but there is IRB review of problems, oversight review of the IRBs review of the problems, etc.

OH! IRB= Independent Review Board

There is sooooo much review in scientific studies. At any point a reviewer may suggest a "double blind" or another statistical review, etc. All problems go back to the review board.

Many, many sets of eyes are focused upon your research at any given moment.

2. Once again, it's hard for me to judge the exact situation without seeing it, but I think my conclusion mentioned above could be just as valid as yours.

If you feel like it U2U me and if we are in the same region I invite you to come walk through and talk to people. It is always fun. You seem generally interested and not at all rude.

3. I appreciate your efforts to help us understand each other's use of terminology. That's always a huge issue with discussions. I hope I have returned the favour.

A lot of times we are saying the same things just differently, but when we are feeling the heat of argument we overlook them.

4. Yes, what Randi does in terms of the JREF is not scientific research and I'm sure I or anyone else did not claim that.

Ummm, okay...?

You're resorting to emotional appeals

How so? I believe that I am doing the opposite. I am explaining how scientific research works, how scientific methodology is applied, and how this is a contest, not exactly research. I explained why I, me, not you, not Baklava, not anyone else feels about this particular contest and its sponsor and why I would recommend people apply to university studies.

Explain the "emotional". Have I called people "stupid" or implied it? Have I said that an argument is "silly"? Have I called people "frauds"?

I may have joked with you with the "you're making me crazy", but I certainly didn't get emotional because the topic doesn't call for it.

Yes, there are ethics but perhaps you need to brush up on Scientific ethics, it's a bit different from moral ethics.

Did you read the link I sent? It is about ethics in human subject research. It is a mandate. Meaning no scientific research is conducted without using them. Period.

As some others have said, statistically speaking, should there not have been at least one person with paranormal abilities to demonstrate their power with a significantly higher rate than chance allows?

Statistically speaking? I would think if this is a real quality it would be of such a rarity that the chances are it has yet to be discovered.

Even just looking at the subset that Randi and the JREF have had for their contests...

How many challenges have their been? More than one hundred? (Serious question)

Tesla - The Man, the Myth, the Legend. I think there's quite a bit of a difference between Tesla and some of these hucksters that have accepted the JREF challenge.

Ummmm, yeh!

Maybe in a few decades we'll look back at Randi and have the same reverence for Randi and think his genius was ahead of it's time.

Ummmmm, no!

Probably by then science as we know it may once again be swept away by religion, Ancient Greek style.

Well, that would be terrible wouldn't it?

*rubs hands together gleefully*

reply to post by A Fortiori


When I said you were resorting to emotional appeal for certain parts, I meant lines like:

Well, how about the people that maybe were picked on their whole life, suddenly find that they can know when a storm is approaching or think the voices they hear are dead people and suddenly they feel "special"? Is it nice to presume because they took this belief and touted it that they are likewise trying to take money from others?

Or what about those that are mentally ill who believe they were abducted by aliens, they you call them liars every chance you get?

You're appealing to my emotion instead of using logic.

I did read the link you provided and I know very well what Scientific ethics are and how they are mandated. My point was that is that you made claims that Randi acts in ways that you deem cruel and shameful. The JREF does meet most of the criteria even by the page you provided but I imagine you would want to examine the psychological effects, a common excuse given by failed contestants.

Once again, don't ask me to do your homework for you. You can find out how many challenges Randi and the JREF have had starting from the $10,000 to the $1 mil. I look forward to your report first thing Monday morning

Wow. The number of responses on this thread shows just what a cult of personality Randi has become for self-proclaimed "skeptics" of any idea that frightens them.

There's a time and place for everything, though. But I agree: Randi is an idiot. He has given skepticism a bad name, associating it more than anyone else I can think of with sarcasm, cynicism, and downright intellectual hostility towards a whole range of studies that hardly deserve it. Exposing frauds is one thing, but asserting so many negatives with attitude alone is childish. It's hard to gauge exactly how much damage he has done to fair studies of various subjects; it will take even longer now to overcome the additional bias to properly figure it out.

Originally posted by 1llum1n471
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

When I said you were resorting to emotional appeal for certain parts, I meant lines like:

Well, how about the people that maybe were picked on their whole life, suddenly find that they can know when a storm is approaching or think the voices they hear are dead people and suddenly they feel "special"? Is it nice to presume because they took this belief and touted it that they are likewise trying to take money from others?

Or what about those that are mentally ill who believe they were abducted by aliens, they you call them liars every chance you get?

You're appealing to my emotion instead of using logic.

Oh, I see. I see.

But that is part of my reasoning. Not only does he say presume to tell people who have been doing research for years how to do their job (no one likes that), but those less "titled" he ridicules and demeans (no one likes that).

There are many reasons why someone would accept his challenge, not all of them monetary. People might want to believe they are "special", and he labels them frauds, the implication being that they are trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. I think this is ass-uming something about strangers that you have no "proof" of, and it is just inappropriate, and, as you put it "emotional".

If you guys were dealing with "just the facts" then it would be Subject A lost the challenge. It wouldn't be: Uri Gellar has taken people's moneys for years and he's a fraud, a hoax, and I'm on you like a cheap suit, blah blah blah.

Emotion goes bothways, my friend.

Yes, I am emotional on this issue because I have met a lot of people who "think" they're psychic and its not because they are trying to cheat anyone of anything. They want to feel special, make friends, and help people. They don't deserve to be called names.

I did read the link you provided and I know very well what Scientific ethics are and how they are mandated.

Great!

My point was that is that you made claims that Randi acts in ways that you deem cruel and shameful.

Yes, he "names names", he talks about them afterwards as if this happened on the WWE and then in the same breadth talks about science.

The JREF does meet most of the criteria even by the page you provided but I imagine you would want to examine the psychological effects, a common excuse given by failed contestants.

The individuals should be anonymous, the individuals cannot be subjected to humiliation (unless it is an accepted part of the research, IE, studying affects of), the individuals must be of "sound mind", etc.

Once again, don't ask me to do your homework for you. You can find out how many challenges Randi and the JREF have had starting from the $10,000 to the $1 mil. I look forward to your report first thing Monday morning

Great, now I have to go on the site...

The fact is he is out there saying that this is all BS (meaning he is biased), he touts it from every mountain top, and then says, "but...I can be impartial if I have to be."

Can the Pope be impartial about Jesus?

You and I ought to agree to disagree on this one. I do respect you and your opinion. You haven't been a jerk, you've been nice. Let's just shake on this one...

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's hard to gauge exactly how much damage he has done to fair studies of various subjects; it will take even longer now to overcome the additional bias to properly figure it out.

That's funny, I would think the exact sentiment to be true for all the frauds and pseudo-scientists that have wasted countless resources that could have been spent towards looking for genuine paranormal phenomenon. Seems to be a case of "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"

reply to post by 1llum1n471


What kinds of "countless resources" have been wasted by scientists on examining frauds?

reply to post by A Fortiori


The mark of a good scientist is to understand the boundaries of one's education and expertise. If Randi presumes to give advice to scientists, it could be out of concern. We can only speculate on his reasoning. Any scientist worth his/her weight would understand the need for an expert opinion and in this case, Randi can be seen as an expert thanks to his years as a conjurer.

Once again, you try to extend words to a few to the many that claim to have paranormal phenomenon. I have given my opinion on paranormal phenomenon and whether or not resources, particularly scientific resources, should be spent towards researching such phenomenon.

For some people, once those that claim to have such powers submit to testing and have agreed that they are in their power before, during, and after the test but then make excuses once they fail then they are seen as frauds. Naturally, some will continue to believe. This has no bearing on others, but looked upon as "case by case".

You have a personal stake in this argument due to your experiences and your friendships. This is fine, but do not let your emotion get the best of you and misunderstand the words I have written.

As far as individuals being anonymous, yes this is the case if it were a scientific test. This is a contest and has it's charms. You don't go to Hell's Kitchen and expect Chef Ramsay not to call you a donkey

The Pope comment while funny has no implication on Randi unless you want to argue that science is a new faith

*shakes hands*

It was a great discussion. Thanks!

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by 1llum1n471

 

What kinds of "countless resources" have been wasted by scientists on examining frauds?

I'm about to head out the door, but a few people including myself have referred to research studies that were spent on people like Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price, and many more. Just a few examples to get you started.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by 1llum1n471]

I wouldn't go so far as to call Randi an idiot. He is a very intelligent man. At the same time, I view him as so intelligent that he lacks in other areas, such as being able to navigate the social world effectively and efficiently. But that's my opinion, which isn't worth more than the characters I used to type it.

There are many problems that I have with his million dollar "prize" offer. Again, mMy criticisms are just my opinion. It is his money, and he is clearly free to throw it out of helicopters if that is what he wants to do.

No, one of my issues is that people who apply for the "prize", in some ways, cheapen the issue or the claim that they are trying to make. Does the motivation process involved with GREED in some ways negatively impact the use and expression of psi-phenomena? It seems to me that there is always an opposite spectrum to any phenomena. There's white magick, and black magick (for instance). There's dedication, and obsession. I wonder if the mere offer of a cash prize serves as a sampling bias for unsophisticated applicants, charlatans, frauds, etc.

I think that if the members of the JREF/Randi Foundation were truly interested in a scientific investigation of a particular psi phenomenon, they would use the foundation's funds to create a research institute, a monthly peer-reviewed journal, and encourage the development of independent verification of results.

Subjects would not be a part of an elaborate psi-phenomenon game show, but rather encouraged to feel relaxed and maximize their chances of reproducing their abilities. Instead of having to sift through experimenter effects & experimenter bias, the subjects would be treated with respect, and compensated fairly for their participation- regardless of outcome.

The other danger is that the Randi challenge appears to the general public as a credible research task. Because nobody has won the challenge, the general public is more apt to conclude that, "Well... nobody's won the million, I guess all this psychic stuff is a load of horse pucky".

If you have members of the general public who believe that psychic experiences and abilities are "horse pucky", how likely is it that those people would recognize those abilities within themselves if those abilities actually existed?

Just some thoughts. Sorry for the novel.
MK

[edit on 17-10-2009 by MKULTRA]

[edit on 17-10-2009 by MKULTRA]

Originally posted by 1llum1n471

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by 1llum1n471

 

What kinds of "countless resources" have been wasted by scientists on examining frauds?

I'm about to head out the door, but a few people including myself have referred to research studies that were spent on people like Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price, and many more. Just a few examples to get you started.

I am aware of those examples, I would just like to know how the amount of resources spent studying these people outweighs the potential advantages of finding anything legitimate about these kinds of phenomena, or any reason to doubt the possibility of these phenomena besides that they have not yet been scientifically validated. It is well-known to all scientists in all fields that science still has plenty to learn, especially in sciences dealing with the mind, which are baby sciences. I don't think Randi is helping anyone with his pessimism and automatic bias towards anything that doesn't fit into 19th-century ways of thinking.