Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Randi's preliminary test

Expand Messages
  • Ruby Honey
    I ve never understood the reason for the preliminary test. Why not a series of tests, over time? He knows damn well, as all debunkers do who study the
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I've never understood the reason for the "preliminary test." Why not a series of tests, over time? He knows
      damn well, as all debunkers do who "study" the paranormal, that paranormal abilities are well known to be
      more tempermental, for lack of a better word, in labatory settings. A psychic can have a very impressive series
      of hits then seems to dry up when being tested. This phenomenon is well known. Having a psychic perform on
      cue just one time is a set-up designed only to satisfy the huckster aspects of Randi and his organization.

      ~ ruby
    • thevirtualgreek
      ... not a series of tests, over time? He knows ... paranormal abilities are well known to be ... A psychic can have a very impressive series ... well known.
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 19, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
        <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
        > I've never understood the reason for the "preliminary test." Why
        not a series of tests, over time? He knows
        > damn well, as all debunkers do who "study" the paranormal, that
        paranormal abilities are well known to be
        > more tempermental, for lack of a better word, in labatory settings.
        A psychic can have a very impressive series
        > of hits then seems to dry up when being tested. This phenomenon is
        well known. Having a psychic perform on
        > cue just one time is a set-up designed only to satisfy the huckster
        aspects of Randi and his organization.

        The purpose of the preliminary test is to reduce the cost for the
        claimant, because the claimant bears all costs. By having a less
        formal test close to where the claimant lives, his costs are reduced.
        If the preliminary test is failed, the claimant can take it again a
        year later (as the Russian girl is doing, sigh).

        I'm sure the JREF would accomodate a claimant who required multiple
        tests to demonstrate his abilities. The remote viewing protocols
        involved many tests. And claimants aren't required to get 100% hits.
        The protocol for Sylvia Browne only requires 60% hits or something
        like that. It just has to be sufficiently better than chance so that
        there is a very low likelihood of a chance success. (As it stands,
        someone IS going to win the prize by chance eventually.)

        If the claimant cannot specify the circumstances under which he can
        successfully demonstate his ability, then there is nothing to test
        anyway. Here is the first paragraph of the application:

        "1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF
        will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the
        limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
        other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a
        positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most
        important of these rules."

        ~~ Paul
      • Ruby Honey
        ... Well, that s considerate of ol Randi. What an alturistic guy. Seriously though, if one can be in discussing Randi and related ilk, it s still a b.s. set
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 22, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
          > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
          > > I've never understood the reason for the "preliminary test." Why
          > not a series of tests, over time? He knows
          > > damn well, as all debunkers do who "study" the paranormal, that
          > paranormal abilities are well known to be
          > > more tempermental, for lack of a better word, in labatory settings.
          > A psychic can have a very impressive series
          > > of hits then seems to dry up when being tested. This phenomenon is
          > well known. Having a psychic perform on
          > > cue just one time is a set-up designed only to satisfy the huckster
          > aspects of Randi and his organization.
          >
          > The purpose of the preliminary test is to reduce the cost for the
          > claimant, because the claimant bears all costs. By having a less
          > formal test close to where the claimant lives, his costs are reduced.
          > If the preliminary test is failed, the claimant can take it again a
          > year later (as the Russian girl is doing, sigh).
          Well, that's considerate of ol' Randi. What an alturistic guy.
          Seriously though, if one can be in discussing Randi and related ilk, it's still a b.s. set up. So, the preliminary test
          is failed; that's not conclusive, and gets back to my point. It's just a scam.


          > I'm sure the JREF would accomodate a claimant who required multiple
          > tests to demonstrate his abilities.

          Really. Then why don't they?

          >The remote viewing protocols
          > involved many tests. And claimants aren't required to get 100% hits.
          > The protocol for Sylvia Browne only requires 60% hits or something
          > like that. It just has to be sufficiently better than chance so that
          > there is a very low likelihood of a chance success. (As it stands,
          > someone IS going to win the prize by chance eventually.)

          Who's come up with the arbitrary 60% hits or "something like that" - now, that's a bit vague.

          > If the claimant cannot specify the circumstances under which he can
          > successfully demonstate his ability, then there is nothing to test
          > anyway. Here is the first paragraph of the application:

          HUH????????

          > "1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF
          > will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the
          > limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
          > other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a
          > positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most
          > important of these rules."


          ah, applicant AND JREF will agree upon... Right. And yet...

          What bogus buffonry. (or however you spell it.)

          ~ magic fish deer
        • thevirtualgreek
          ... reduced. ... a ... ilk, it s still a b.s. set up. So, the preliminary test ... just a scam. Why is it a bullshit setup? Sure, if someone fails the
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 23, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
            <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
            > > The purpose of the preliminary test is to reduce the cost for the
            > > claimant, because the claimant bears all costs. By having a less
            > > formal test close to where the claimant lives, his costs are
            reduced.
            > > If the preliminary test is failed, the claimant can take it again
            a
            > > year later (as the Russian girl is doing, sigh).

            > Well, that's considerate of ol' Randi. What an alturistic guy.
            > Seriously though, if one can be in discussing Randi and related
            ilk, it's still a b.s. set up. So, the preliminary test
            > is failed; that's not conclusive, and gets back to my point. It's
            just a scam.

            Why is it a bullshit setup? Sure, if someone fails the preliminary
            test, it's not conclusive evidence that the person can't do what he
            claims. No one said it was. But it's also not conclusive evidence
            that he can, so no money. What's the problem?

            > > I'm sure the JREF would accomodate a claimant who required
            multiple
            > > tests to demonstrate his abilities.
            >
            > Really. Then why don't they?

            Do you have an example of someone who requested multiple tests and
            was turned down for that reason? The Russian girl is an example where
            multiple tests are happening.

            > >The remote viewing protocols
            > > involved many tests. And claimants aren't required to get 100%
            hits.
            > > The protocol for Sylvia Browne only requires 60% hits or
            something
            > > like that. It just has to be sufficiently better than chance so
            that
            > > there is a very low likelihood of a chance success. (As it
            stands,
            > > someone IS going to win the prize by chance eventually.)
            >
            > Who's come up with the arbitrary 60% hits or "something like that" -
            now, that's a bit vague.

            It was probably determined by consulting with a statistician. We had
            many discussions about the stats on the JREF forum. If Sylvia didn't
            agree, she could have just said so. If she is psychic, what
            difference does 50% or 60% or 70% make?

            > > If the claimant cannot specify the circumstances under which he
            can
            > > successfully demonstate his ability, then there is nothing to
            test
            > > anyway. Here is the first paragraph of the application:
            >
            > HUH????????

            Huh what? What do you expect, that the claimant can just say "I'm not
            really sure what I can do, but let's start and then you can pay me
            the $1 million."? No one is forcing a claimant to apply for the
            prize, so if he can't specify what he can do, fine.

            > > "1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and
            JREF
            > > will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated,
            the
            > > limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location
            and
            > > other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a
            > > positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most
            > > important of these rules."
            >
            > ah, applicant AND JREF will agree upon... Right. And yet...

            Yet what?

            You're just flailing around, ruby. What are the real objections?

            ~~ Paul
          • Ruby Honey
            ... First of all, if you re going to repost posts, get it straight. I know what I said, but it might be confusing for others. The way you have it posted with
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 23, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
              > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
              > > > The purpose of the preliminary test is to reduce the cost for the
              > > > claimant, because the claimant bears all costs. By having a less
              > > > formal test close to where the claimant lives, his costs are
              > reduced.
              > > > If the preliminary test is failed, the claimant can take it again
              > a
              > > > year later (as the Russian girl is doing, sigh).
              >
              > > Well, that's considerate of ol' Randi. What an alturistic guy.
              > > Seriously though, if one can be in discussing Randi and related
              > ilk, it's still a b.s. set up. So, the preliminary test
              > > is failed; that's not conclusive, and gets back to my point. It's
              > just a scam.
              >
              > Why is it a bullshit setup? Sure, if someone fails the preliminary
              > test, it's not conclusive evidence that the person can't do what he
              > claims. No one said it was. But it's also not conclusive evidence
              > that he can, so no money. What's the problem?
              >
              > > > I'm sure the JREF would accomodate a claimant who required
              > multiple
              > > > tests to demonstrate his abilities.
              > >
              > > Really. Then why don't they?
              >
              > Do you have an example of someone who requested multiple tests and
              > was turned down for that reason? The Russian girl is an example where
              > multiple tests are happening.
              >
              > > >The remote viewing protocols
              > > > involved many tests. And claimants aren't required to get 100%
              > hits.
              > > > The protocol for Sylvia Browne only requires 60% hits or
              > something
              > > > like that. It just has to be sufficiently better than chance so
              > that
              > > > there is a very low likelihood of a chance success. (As it
              > stands,
              > > > someone IS going to win the prize by chance eventually.)
              > >
              > > Who's come up with the arbitrary 60% hits or "something like that" -
              > now, that's a bit vague.
              >
              > It was probably determined by consulting with a statistician. We had
              > many discussions about the stats on the JREF forum. If Sylvia didn't
              > agree, she could have just said so. If she is psychic, what
              > difference does 50% or 60% or 70% make?
              >
              > > > If the claimant cannot specify the circumstances under which he
              > can
              > > > successfully demonstate his ability, then there is nothing to
              > test
              > > > anyway. Here is the first paragraph of the application:
              > >
              > > HUH????????
              >
              > Huh what? What do you expect, that the claimant can just say "I'm not
              > really sure what I can do, but let's start and then you can pay me
              > the $1 million."? No one is forcing a claimant to apply for the
              > prize, so if he can't specify what he can do, fine.
              >
              > > > "1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and
              > JREF
              > > > will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated,
              > the
              > > > limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location
              > and
              > > > other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a
              > > > positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most
              > > > important of these rules."
              > >
              > > ah, applicant AND JREF will agree upon... Right. And yet...
              >
              > Yet what?
              >
              > You're just flailing around, ruby. What are the real objections?
              >
              > ~~ Paul

              First of all, if you're going to repost posts, get it straight. I know what I said, but it might be confusing for
              others. The way you have it posted with brackets, it's unclear who said what.

              Secondly, bubbo, I ain't flailing around, (hey, is that like hand waving?) and ya know what? This is Debunking
              Debunker's forum. Yea, just like the other ones. You know. Boy, some people just don't get the concept, LOL.

              ~ ruby
            • thevirtualgreek
              ... know what I said, but it might be confusing for ... said what. Hey, I just do a Reply. ... waving?) and ya know what? This is Debunking ... some people
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 28, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                > First of all, if you're going to repost posts, get it straight. I
                know what I said, but it might be confusing for
                > others. The way you have it posted with brackets, it's unclear who
                said what.

                Hey, I just do a Reply.

                > Secondly, bubbo, I ain't flailing around, (hey, is that like hand
                waving?) and ya know what? This is Debunking
                > Debunker's forum. Yea, just like the other ones. You know. Boy,
                some people just don't get the concept, LOL.

                And some people won't respond to the points.

                ~~ Paul
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.