05 Nov 2011, 21:11
05 Nov 2011, 21:59
05 Nov 2011, 23:24
craig weiler wrote:I bring up Zammit's challenge because it is a way to turn the argument around and show the more enlightened skeptics what happens when the MDC argument is turned against them. All the same unreasonable tactics can be used.
05 Nov 2011, 23:39
06 Nov 2011, 00:43
06 Nov 2011, 01:11
06 Nov 2011, 01:43
ProfWag wrote:Craig Browning wrote:The joke within the Psychic Community is that the MDC is a retirement program for psychics; you take the challenge and use the experience as a marketing vehicle that will sell books, get you on TV and booked for lots of lectures. . . I'm not kidding, even in loosing the challenge you win! You likewise have valuable feedback for the Psi Community itself as to what goes on in the testing, the attitudes, etc.
Really? Since no one has ever made it far enough along to actually take the challenge, I'm not quite sure how they could get rich off of TV and books for not winning.
07 Nov 2011, 09:41
craig weiler wrote:Nostradamus,
I personally would not accept any challenge that was completely controlled by someone I didn't trust. I don't think that anyone else would either.
Zammit has a million dollar challenge of his own for skeptics. I've never heard of a skeptic who thought that one was fair. Just turn the logic around.
07 Nov 2011, 09:44
craig weiler wrote:I haven't heard of that happening either. There is one case I know of where JREF made mistakes on the protocol and refused to re-test and another where a young girl was succeeding and Randi kept intervening, tweaking the process until he succeeded in breaking her concentration. There is, of course, no appeal.
It's also a high pressure, high stakes challenge presented by people who are hoping that you'll fail, which is the exact opposite of the conditions most suitable for psi. Based on that alone I would expect people to fail.
07 Nov 2011, 12:07
If the people are hoping that someone fails then they are not skeptics.
The challenge is to entice people to come forward and demonstrate an ability.
To suggest that the thoughts of other people have an effect on psi sounds to me like an excuse for the repeated failures of psi.
09 Nov 2011, 00:03
I'm sure it does sound like an excuse to you; many skeptics take that position. However, studies have confirmed this to be true. In a landmark staring study with Richard Wiseman and Marilyn Schlitz it was demonstrated that psi scores dropped to chance levels among participants when tested by a skeptic, but the same people tested positive when tested by a believer. These were controlled studies. There were other, earlier studies that confirmed the same thing, but I don't have them handy as a reference.
And if you think about it, it makes sense. Telepathy isn't necessarily choosey.
09 Nov 2011, 01:14
09 Nov 2011, 10:46
09 Nov 2011, 11:50
high stakes challenge presented by people who are hoping that you'll fail,
Yes, those are pseudo-skeptics.
The challenge has been around quite a while and Randi has a track record of blowing off good challenges while testing no-hopers.
However, studies have confirmed this to be true.
A large body of research has examined the possible existence of psychic ability. Proponents claim that some of this work supports the existence of such abilities; skeptics argue that such studies suffer from potential flaws and artifacts. As with other controversial areas of psychology, researchers on both sides of the debate have tended to collaborate only with colleagues who hold the same beliefs about the phenomena in question. This is unfortunate, as skeptic-proponent collaborations offer the potential for resolving key areas of disagreement. The first author, a proponent, and the second, a skeptic, have been conducting a systematic program of collaborative skeptic-proponent research in parapsychology. This involved carrying out joint experiments in which each investigator individually attempted to mentally influence the electrodermal activity of participants at a distant location. In the first two collaborations, experiments conducted by the proponent obtained significant results but those conducted by the skeptic did not. This paper describes a new collaborative study that attempted to replicate our previous findings and explore potential explanations for past results. The new study failed to replicate our previous findings. The implications of this work are discussed, along with the benefits of conducting collaborative work for resolving disagreements in other controversial areas of psychology.
09 Nov 2011, 12:04
See a most interesting example of the EXPERIMENTER EFFECT > Dr. Marilyn Schlitz neutral experimenter obtained positive results and Dr Richard Wiseman, who has a historical track record of finding against psychics - doing the same experiment as Dr Schlitz consistently obtained negative results