It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1.2 Million Dollars if you can Show Evidence of any Paranormal, Supernatural, or Occult Power or Eve

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by EthanT
So, do you have to be the Michael Jordan of psychics to pass Randi's test?
I really tried hard to explain that in my post so you may want to read it again.

You design your own test.

However, you have to make it hard to pass, and some people don't understand that.

If I say I can affect coin flips so that I'll make a coin land on heads in 15 flips out of 20, I might think that demonstrates some kind of psychic ability. But I'd be wrong, that can happen by random chance alone. And it's exactly that kind of misunderstanding where the conflict arises. The contest rules would require something like 20 out of 20, and then people say that no psychic is that good.

Actually you can get 20 out of 20 with no psychic abilities at all, it can happen with random chance. But it's only roughly a one in a million occurrence, so that's the difficulty level Randi requires.

So you design your own test, but the rules require that you design it so the chances of you passing it by random chance alone are very slim, because understandably, they don't want to pay out the prize money to someone who has no abilities at all. And that could happen if they allow a result which could happen by random chance to get the prize. 20 coin flips of heads in a row could even happen by random chance, but at least that's approaching a difficulty level that they would accept for the main test. For the preliminary test, it's less stringent.

Even with the 20 coin flips landing on heads, which people say is "impossible", if he tested a million people, it would probably happen once just by random chance and he'd pay out the prize to someone who has no ability at all. But since he's testing far less than that, he's willing to accept that level of risk that the prize could be paid out to someone with no abilities.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If you can call it 15 out of 20 times why can't you call it 75 out of 100 times? Or just continue to increase the number of times and get x percentage in order to remove any statistical anomalies.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Headcrusher23
In topic title it also says eve along with occult power, what is eve?


That was typed in as Event, but I think the title was too long or something, it just cut it off.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Hi Arbitrageur,

I did read that post of yours and it had some excellent points.

I just wasn't sure if that was your own reasoning, or if you actually had intimate knowledge of one of the tests.

I guess I would like to look over a test, just like we could look over that FAQ you linked too.

However, I suspect you're right. It is after all $1,000,000+.

But, that's why I see two problems with his test.

There are few conclusions that the folks who do ESP research have come to, and at least two are important here.

(1) ESP is probably an evolved trait. Or, it is an ability that likely appears at a point when consciousness has evolved far enough along to begin to manifest this ability. And, humanity is just barely getting there now.

(2) ESP is a learned ablity. It is innate in all of us, but it just doesn't turn on to 100% power right away. It is something that develops gradually over time with effort, in most cases.

Randi's test design apparently ignores these facts, if it is working on the assumptions you stated in your post.

Check out Daryl Bem's study that was published recently in a respectable journal. It has positive results with a very high statistical significance, indicating that something ESP-like is going on - specifically, retrocausal influences. Yet, if you look at the individuals ESP skills in the test ... well, quite frankly, they suck!

If there is something to this study, then ESP IS real and Randi's test is not designed to give it any relevance - it's more a gimmick, than anything.

www.dbem.ws...


edit on 20-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If you can call it 15 out of 20 times why can't you call it 75 out of 100 times? Or just continue to increase the number of times and get x percentage in order to remove any statistical anomalies.


IIRC, with ESP experiments like card counting the ESP effects would wear off after a lot of trials. At least, for one individual.

One explanation was boredom, as it can become a highly repetitive and tedious task. Since ESP is a mental task, it probably requires a certain mental state to perform well.

There were probably other ideas/explanations than that, but I just don't remember. It's been a while since I looked into it.

I do seem to remember that card counting, or similar tests, showed low statistical significance compared to other ESP tests. I think more creative, or engaging, tasks would bring about better results.

Hmmmmm, I'm starting to get the urge to look into all this again ....



edit on 20-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 


Exactly. They will jump on any explanation that doesn't destroy their little bubble, no matter how flimsy, ill-fitting, and grossly flawed that it is.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EthanT
Check out Daryl Bem's study that was published recently in a respectable journal. It has positive results with a very high statistical significance, indicating that something ESP-like is going on - specifically, retrocausal influences. Yet, if you look at the individuals ESP skills in the test ... well, quite frankly, they suck!

Daryl Bem is a respected researcher. I did read most of his paper including the part where Bem himself said that unless his results can be replicated, they probably aren't valid. He's well aware of the need to be able to replicate results, and makes a big point of that in his paper, which I give him credit for saying because a lot of papers ignore this and seem to feel their results mean something without replication. He made replication kits available for other researchers, and in fact I personally participated in one of the replication experiments.

The last I heard, there were three replication experiments that had failed, but more planned with a deadline I think at the end of this year or something, I seem to recall 2012 as a possible follow-up date to look at the replication results.

In fact James Randi addresses research which shows that psychic ability exists in his FAQ:

JREF Challenge FAQ

(9) Scientific papers have been written supporting paranormal events and talents. Therefore, how can you deny them?

....there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science.
Bem also says how important that is, and the replication attempts at his experiment weren't looking too good last I heard.


Originally posted by EthanT
I do seem to remember that card counting, or similar tests, showed low statistical significance compared to other ESP tests. I think more creative, or engaging, tasks would bring about better results.

Hmmmmm, I'm starting to get the urge to look into all this again ....
You mean you might be interested in taking the test? Or you're just curious about it?

Your points about low statistical significance are well-placed because I don't know how much you know about statistics but that's exactly one area where Bem's paper has been criticized, for using the wrong type of statistics for this type of research.

I consider myself an open-minded skeptic on Psi or ESP abilities, but I find Bem's paper unconvincing without replication, which as he says in the paper, so does he, as he insists the results must be able to be replicated to be scientifically valid. I think Bem's paper indicates he may have fallen prey to the same types of flaws that cause people to think they have an ability, that his, he'd sometimes stop the test when he saw a significant result and go ahead and report that. That's a poor scientific method that he's been criticized for. The proper method is to design the test with the number of trials needed, and complete the designed number of trials. In some cases, that's not what he did.

And let's say that maybe some type of ESP exists but it's flaky, of low statistical significance, and can't be replicated. In that case, it may never be scientifically proven. And in that case, nobody will win the Randi challenge. But then, maybe nobody's ability is all that great.

But if more creative tests would help, the applicant can be as creative as they want in designing the test, because the applicant is the one who is supposed to design the test, though it must meet the foundation's approval.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I think most conceptions of what these paranormal, ESP, supernatural type encounters involve very unique circumstances and will never be reproducible in any consistent manner any time soon. What is mysterious and hidden shall remain so until its due revelation. We'll get proof when we correctly apply our intentions. And money is no real lure to empowered people, i think a ghost hunter or a person with x-men type "powers" would be put under terrible scrutiny for going against the paradigm in such a materialistic way. Seriously, you can't bribe ghosts with money. And the people acting as mediums, if they existed, should be held to a super-natural set of rules to abide by, namely don't mess with peoples heads and show-off superpowers. I'm not too comfortable with the concept of supernatural.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Daryl Bem is a respected researcher. I did read most of his paper including the part where Bem himself said that unless his results can be replicated, they probably aren't valid. He's well aware of the need to be able to replicate results, and makes a big point of that in his paper, which I give him credit for saying because a lot of papers ignore this and seem to feel their results mean something without replication. He made replication kits available for other researchers, and in fact I personally participated in one of the replication experiments.


Well, it's very important to realize that Bem's experiment is itself a replication of prior successful ESP tests. It's far from the first test on ESP. He mentions this in his paper, as well as briefly outlines past studies. His tests are not that different from Dean Radin's tests that were done prior to Bem's.

That's why I always get an impression that guys like Randi are running a "debunking" agenda, when they make misleading statements like the one you quoted:


....there is not a single example of a scientific discovery in the field of parapsychology that has been independently replicated. That makes parapsychology absolutely unique in the world of science.


They were not published in a journal as prestigous as the one Bem's was in, so I guess Randi doesn't count them.

Ever try to publish a paper on a topic as taboo as ESP? It ain't easy!

In addition, a recent meta analysis was done on most ESP research conducted to date and resulted in high statistical significance. I'm still waiting on the paper, but the results are in an abstract here:

deanradin.blogspot.com...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Your points about low statistical significance are well-placed because I don't know how much you know about statistics but that's exactly one area where Bem's paper has been criticized, for using the wrong type of statistics for this type of research.


That criticism was leveled at psychologists, in general, who use Z-scores instead of Bayesian analysis. It wasn't only aimed at Bem, although he was the primary target in the paper.

Not all statisticians agree on this. Bem (and Radin) went back and used Bayesian statistcs on both Bem's study (and on the above mentioned meta analysis) and obtained statistically significant numbers, once again.

Here is Bem's response to the criticism, co-authored with two prominent bayesian statisticians. (The Bayesian analysis is contained within, I believe)

www.dbem.ws...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think Bem's paper indicates he may have fallen prey to the same types of flaws that cause people to think they have an ability, that his, he'd sometimes stop the test when he saw a significant result and go ahead and report that. That's a poor scientific method that he's been criticized for. The proper method is to design the test with the number of trials needed, and complete the designed number of trials. In some cases, that's not what he did.


I assume you are talking about Sam Moulton's claim that Bem made the mistake of optional stopping or selective reporting. This was during a conference and Sam had only one suspected instance of this, I believe. Bem explained that he did not do that and offered a decent explanation of how this was not the case. I don't rememeber the details though.

You can see the video for yourself here:



Also, Schooler, who is also in this video, recently replicated Bem's results. In fact, some of it may have been slightly before Bems. But, he also noticed a decline effect, which could make reproducing the results difficult.

But, to be honest, something smelled fishy here to me. It's just a little too convenient, ya know? It appears to be a valid effect, based on the fact that it is observed in the pharmaceutical industry, as well, but the timing is well .... hmmmm.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And let's say that maybe some type of ESP exists but it's flaky, of low statistical significance, and can't be replicated. In that case, it may never be scientifically proven. And in that case, nobody will win the Randi challenge. But then, maybe nobody's ability is all that great. .


ESP will definitely be a tough nut to crack. I think it will be a while before we know how to truly test for it. In that video above, Bem makes one comparison to a now well known and generally accepted phenomenon in psychology today that was very difficult to test for initially, and therefore highly controversial back in the day. ESP will probably be far worse.

I think the jury is still out on this one for now ... but it will be real interesting to see where it all goes.


edit on 20-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
By the way, the best coverage of Bem's results are from here:

Time-Traveling Porn - Daryl Bem - Colbert Report




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EthanT
Well, it's very important to realize that Bem's experiment is itself a replication of prior successful ESP tests. It's far from the first test on ESP. He mentions this in his paper, as well as briefly outlines past studies. His tests are not that different from Dean Radin's tests that were done prior to Bem's.
"not that different", well there you go. It's not a replication, is it? I thought a replication means the test is conducted exactly the same way with the same methods, etc.

But I found some of the other comments in your post helpful and I'm going to follow-up with some research on those so thanks for the thoughtful and informative reply!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by EthanT
Well, it's very important to realize that Bem's experiment is itself a replication of prior successful ESP tests. It's far from the first test on ESP. He mentions this in his paper, as well as briefly outlines past studies. His tests are not that different from Dean Radin's tests that were done prior to Bem's.
"not that different", well there you go. It's not a replication, is it? I thought a replication means the test is conducted exactly the same way with the same methods, etc.

But I found some of the other comments in your post helpful and I'm going to follow-up with some research on those so thanks for the thoughtful and informative reply!


Often times "replications" are not true replications in science. Methods are typically improved upon each time it is done. Different labs have different setups, different equipment, etc. But, as long as the new phenomenon, or new result, is empirically verified in a scientifically valid way, that's what counts.

In fact, at least one of the failed "replications" of Bem's work was different than Bem's and was even done over the web. It sounded pretty tacky, actually.

Glad you found some of the info useful. Please let us know if you find anything else useful out there. I'd be real curious to hear about it.


edit on 21-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
These clowns who promise
millions of dollars to those who can prove
they are psychic?

I have an answer for you.

So if this subject is new to you, I’ll
briefly explain. There are showmen who have
made “public challenges” that if anybody can
successfully demonstrate a psychic feat, he’ll
personally give them a million dollars.

If that’s the case, why haven’t my friends
and I taken up the challenge?

Why wouldn’t we want a million dollars,
right?

Firstly, if this was REAL, I WOULD
do it. Because I’m happy to be rewarded a
million dollars for publicly demonstrating
the power of the human mind once and for all.

But it’s not real, it’s FAKE.

These skeptics have dense legal language
giving them loopholes out of the contract
if even one iota of the performance doesn’t
meet their intolerable standards.

It’s not as simple as, “read my mind”
and you win.

And it’s not as simple as “tell me what
the sign in the other room has written on
it”.

There’s an entire legal layer to this
that entitles them to make the final verdict
on what is legitimate, and whether or not
they are bound to report the success, etc.

In other words, they’re setting you up
to lose NO MATTER WHAT.

The game is rigged. The house always wins.

I have friends who HAVE successfully
demonstrated psychic ability, and the
con-man claimed that they failed.

I know other people who are SERIOUS
psychics... who take their practice VERY
SERIOUSLY... and are VERY ACCURATE at retrieving
information clairvoyantly.

They applied for the challenge, and their
applications got rejected!

So not only is the challenge itself
legally unfair, but they reject competent
psychics!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
What a bias topic



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I put up another thread related to some of the stuff talked about in here, like ESP and Daryl Bem. It talks about Time Symmetric Quantum Mechanics and how it seems to paint a nice picture that jives up with how ESP seems to work.

It can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Just came across this article on Randi and thought of this thread.

dailygrail.com...

It's pretty revealing, as far as showing how Randi's test is more about a "debunking" agenda than it is about discovering any truth to psi ability.

It also backs up much of what Arbitrageur said above.

In addition, I think it makes Randi seem a bit dishonest in this endeavour, at the very least.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join