Point 1. (and probably most important) Psychic powers DON’T ACTUALLY EXIST!
– sorry to inform those of you who thought they did, but along with magic, unicorns, and dragons, psychic powers are just a made up thing. They are mostly used to extract money and attention from people who aren’t aware of this point.

Point 2. In light of 1., the MDC results will probably make a lot more sense, given that it is simply confirming what the rest of us already knew. The so-called “psychics” are in fact either a: lying to you, or b: insane!

Point 3. Arguing on the internets about it is not getting you anywhere, partly because the people you are arguing with were already aware of point 1, and partly because that’s just the nature of arguing on the internets.

Point 4. Has anyone heard “Blue Garden” the first album by “Masters of Reality” lately? I just dusted off my copy and had a listen, and dang! I gotta tell ya, it’s really stood the test of time. Highly recommended if you haven’t heard it before.

Remember: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, still exists”

Can you tell me where I can find more information on this? Everyone I have talked to said there was an arbitrary 1000-1 benchmark for the preliminary, and million to 1 for the final challenge (although it was slightly negotiable, depending on the protocol). This seems to have been confirmed in Randi’s JREF newsletter reply to my original article, in which he discussed the odds with his resident statistician. The statistician replied:…

That is not what I mean when I say performance. When you say, for instance, that you are normally right 90% of the time, but in a test you are right 45% of the time, you are operating at half your normal performance level.

In comment #86 you claimed the MDC could disprove someone’s ability to assess their own performance. In #87 I objected and said it could only do on that particular day, a feat that has no scientific meaning whatsoever. In #88, instead of simply agreeing with or objecting to that statement, you totally leave that point aside and try to make a new one – that someone’s ability to assess their performance somehow makes a statement about whether the performance is possible or not at all.

I am not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion about post 88. To repeat what I said in that post, if someone is unable to assess their performance on a given day, then their assessments on other days cannot be trusted. I said nothing whatsoever about whether they can perform or not.

In #89 I use a simple metaphor (Putt thought she was doing well, it was objectively shown she wasn’t – Usain thought he was doing well, it was objectively shown he wasn’t – though he in fact could do so, same might be true for Putt) to show the fallacy of your new point. Again then, in #93, you start a whole new set of points, instead of replying directly to what was said.

I did reply directly to what you said. The first thing I do in post 93 is explain why your metaphor is not valid. It doesn’t matter how clear or simple your metaphor is, if it doesn’t resemble the subject being discussed in the important details then it is not relevant.

Your first point…that’s not even what the metaphor was about, and it should be obvious.

But this is a critical distinction. A runner’s record is not based on their subjective estimate. Even if they were wrong about their best time, the objective measure of their best time still stands. If all we had from a runner is subjective measures of his or her times, and we know that subjective measure is way off from the objective measure, that means we cannot trust any of their subjective times. They may have been right at some point, but since we know they are not reliable none of that can be trusted. To use the cliche, you are comparing apples to oranges, and then you complain when I try to point out that they are different.

Second point…why all these words to explain something completely irrelevant to our discussion ? Not a single word there explains why you would claim that the MDC disproves someone’s ability to assess their performance (or any ability), or why your point made in #88 is not fallacious.

Why not? If someone thinks their assessment may be bad on certain days, they can test their assessment to make sure it is working that day. Built into the testing system is a way to address your concern, to make sure they are not having a bad day in their assessments.

Third point, same problem as with your first point…the world record mentioned in the metaphor is completely irrelevant to the metaphor, and you go on and make lots of words about “peak performance” etc., when that doesn’t have anything to do with our discussion AT ALL.

No, it is critical to the metaphor. People are not asked to operate at their peak performance for JREF, they are asked to operate at a performance level they are sure they will be able to perform at, at a level they consider to be a definitive test of their ability to perform at all. If the subject has any sense this would be set at or below their minimum performance level. Yet they are not even able to tell they are performing below what they think is their minimum performance. There is a huge difference between being able to tell whether you beat your world record and being able to tell whether you performed at all.

So to summarize the problems with your metaphor

1. Your metaphor assumes that we already know that the subject is able to do the task at all, something we do not know for JREF. It also assumes we have some objective standard for the subject to compare against, which we don’t for JREF.
2. Subjects are able to test their assessment of their abilities, so they have no grounds for saying their assessment was not working that day.
3. There is a big difference between being able to tell whether you performed your best ever and being able to tell whether you performed at all (based on your own definition of what is considered “performing”).

I’ll admit that point 1 on its own is not useful, but the points are not meant to be taken individually. I guess it was mistake for assuming you would see how they all fit together. Let me spell it out for you: The subject is not able to correctly assess their ability to do the task at all today (3). The subject is not having a bad day or does not have bad days (2). The only reason we have any reason to believe the subject can do the task is the subject’s assessment of their ability (1). The logical conclusion that we should not believe the subject’s claim that they can do the task.

And your last paragraph describes the situation in a way I never did, so your conclusion that I’m grasping at straws to explain someone’s failure is technically nothing but a cute little strawman argument.

What, specifically, is different from your claim?

Or you give some clear replies to our initial topic – that the MDC can’t “disprove” anything, and is thus scientifically meaningless.

Yes, it can disprove that the subject is able to assess their powers.

I’m still wondering though why you brought the issue of her being able to make correct statements from a subjective viewpoint about her gifts at all.

Because all we have to go on is the subject’s ability “make correct statements from a subjective viewpoint about her gifts”. That is the only evidence that these people have. If they can’t do that then there is no reason to think they have powers at all. That doesn’t disprove that they have powers, I never claimed it did. But it does mean there is no more reason to think the subject has powers then that my computer is really a shape-shifting gnome, or any other random claim. Occam’s razor comes into play.

@TheBlackCat: “It shows that Patricia Putt is incapable of telling whether she actually has powers or not. ”

Fair point.

Even that isn’t a fair point for the MDC I’m afraid. It’s like concluding Usain Bolt can’t tell whether he’s running or not, just because he overestimated the speed with which he was running.

Like TheBlackCat said “While the testing was going on she thought everything was going fine and her powers were working well.”

The “working well” part is crucial. That’s what she was wrong about. Whether she was wrong about the working part, we can’t tell. From that doesn’t logically follow, that if, hypothetically, her gifts exist, she can’t tell whether they’re working at all, i.e. whether she has powers.

Okay, probably I’m obsessing over this whole debate way too much and should just let it go – but I’m flawed like that, so what the hell.

@TheBlackCat

I’m still wondering though why you brought the issue of her being able to make correct statements from a subjective viewpoint about her gifts at all. I guess I’m seeing the point you’re trying to make, but I’m still at a loss as to what that point says about the MDC’s ability to come to scientifically valuable results – which is what was talked about here in the first place. Maybe I should’ve asked you that right from the start, and things would have run a less messy course.

Okay, I’m sorry…I’m trying to get my thoughts as clear and straight as possible (which, granted, might not always be successful since English is not even my first language), and I’m expecting the people I’m debating with to do the same. Of course we all have bad days, but – no offense – you’ve repeatedly made a mess out of this debate. I’m not in a place to say whether that’s intentional or not. Let me explain.

In comment #86 you claimed the MDC could disprove someone’s ability to assess their own performance. In #87 I objected and said it could only do on that particular day, a feat that has no scientific meaning whatsoever. In #88, instead of simply agreeing with or objecting to that statement, you totally leave that point aside and try to make a new one – that someone’s ability to assess their performance somehow makes a statement about whether the performance is possible or not at all. In #89 I use a simple metaphor (Putt thought she was doing well, it was objectively shown she wasn’t – Usain thought he was doing well, it was objectively shown he wasn’t – though he in fact could do so, same might be true for Putt) to show the fallacy of your new point. Again then, in #93, you start a whole new set of points, instead of replying directly to what was said. Your first point…that’s not even what the metaphor was about, and it should be obvious. Second point…why all these words to explain something completely irrelevant to our discussion ? Not a single word there explains why you would claim that the MDC disproves someone’s ability to assess their performance (or any ability), or why your point made in #88 is not fallacious. Third point, same problem as with your first point…the world record mentioned in the metaphor is completely irrelevant to the metaphor, and you go on and make lots of words about “peak performance” etc., when that doesn’t have anything to do with our discussion AT ALL. You miss or choose to ignore the most obvious meaning of the metaphor and reply to elements of it that one would have to go out and look for. And your last paragraph describes the situation in a way I never did, so your conclusion that I’m grasping at straws to explain someone’s failure is technically nothing but a cute little strawman argument.

So I don’t know, if you wanna keep messing this discussion up and spiralling out into areas that were never even the topic, by all means, keep doing so, but I’m done then. Or you give some clear replies to our initial topic – that the MDC can’t “disprove” anything, and is thus scientifically meaningless.

“Do have anything serious to add to this discussion, Leander?”

What I’m adding to the discussion can’t be as bad as you make it look, since we seem to agree on at least some things – I asked the yes-no-question you replied to after specifying “if, as was established here so far, the MDC doesn’t make any scientifically valuable statement”. Instead of objecting to this specification you chose to answer the question I derived from it, so I think it’s fair to assume that we agree on the specification.

Your answer seems to imply though that I’m oversimplifying the situation, and that you somehow think that it’s okay for people interested in educating the public about science and scientific thinking to use unscientific exercises like the MDC to back up their arguments. I personally still think that noone, whether they call themselves skeptics, psychics, ufologists or whatever should use anything devoid of scientifc value to back up their position, and worse, make things that don’t have that value look as if it does. It’s still that simple to me, but maybe I’m having a dull week. If YOU have something serious to add to this discussion, this would be a good time to enlighten me on the complexities of why skeptics should not oppose that kind of behaviour in skeptics, only in everybody else. I’d think ESPECIALLY people claiming an interest in spreading rational thought should be taken to task for stuff like that, and the double standard it involves. But I hope you’ll clear it all up for me.

Fair point.

@TheBlackCat:”the purpose of the test is not to determine their maximum level of performance, it is to determine whether they have any performance at all. They are asked what performance level they can perform at consistently, not what their best-ever performance level is, like in your example. The threshold is then set well below that performance level, as we saw in this example, at a level they agree they should have no problem meeting.”

Can you tell me where I can find more information on this? Everyone I have talked to said there was an arbitrary 1000-1 benchmark for the preliminary, and million to 1 for the final challenge (although it was slightly negotiable, depending on the protocol). This seems to have been confirmed in Randi’s JREF newsletter reply to my original article, in which he discussed the odds with his resident statistician. The statistician replied:

“Setting the bar for significance is “merely” a matter of deciding how risk-tolerant you’re willing to be. I believe that it is entirely sensible to set a high bar for the $1M prize. Maybe one out of a million is a bit extreme, but it’s your money and your risk.

On the other hand, you might consider a lower bar for the preliminary test and still protect yourself overall. For instance, you could use .01 (which is frequently seen in the scientific and statistical literature) for the preliminary, and a 1 out of 100,000 rule for the final test – and taken together, you’d know there was only a one-in-a-million shot that someone could get lucky on both.”

So let’s say Usain Bolt is running the 100m distance, and think’s he’s outdone his world record. But he’s not. His subjective experience clouded his assertion of his performance. We all know how things can actually feel a lot different from how they actually are. His ability to judge his own performance doesn’t make any statement about the performance measured in the particular example, nor about his performance on any other day. Do you see how fallacious and misleading your attempt to correlate the two is ? I guess that was unintentional though, right ?

That is not an accurate metaphor.

First, his world record is measured by objective tests. You are comparing a previous objective test of his performance with a current subjective test. For these people, the JREF is the first objective test. So all we have to go on is previous subjective measures.

Second, the people can be tested first, going through the whole procedure, but without blinding in place. Then they go through the real test immediately after. And in some cases, I think, they even have a third unblinded test after the real test but before the results are released to make sure their performance is still up at the level they want. So subjects are able to look and see whether their powers are working when they know the correct answer, then be tested without knowing the correct answer, and then be tested again knowing the correct answer. So if they were really using their powers and their powers were not working they would find that out during the initial or final test.

Third, the purpose of the test is not to determine their maximum level of performance, it is to determine whether they have any performance at all. They are asked what performance level they can perform at consistently, not what their best-ever performance level is, like in your example. The threshold is then set well below that performance level, as we saw in this example, at a level they agree they should have no problem meeting.

So yes, I suppose it is possible that their powers worked immediately before and after the actual test, in otherwise identical situations, and that they somehow accurately know their performance every other time they use their powers (including just a few minutes before and after) but their ability to assess their performance during the test randomly failed just that one time only and failed in thinking they did well (which is coincidentally what you would expect if they had no powers to begin with). But if you have to go to those sorts of extremes to explain a failure I think you are really grasping at straws.

[i] To demonstrate that the MDC is scientifically useless and does produce no scientificillally valauable result at all ?[/i] No, but if I qualify it, I’ll be dodging.

[i] So if none of you here, including Phil, can make a worthy point to prove that the MDC is a scientific contribution to the debate – shouldn’t you be going out to take down those skeptics deluding the public into thinking that the MDC proves or disproves anything ?[/i] No, but again if I explain myself I’ll be dodging…

Do have anything serious to add to this discussion, Leander?

Well, I’m not gonna suspect the people who claim that the MDC is useful would do the same in such a case – because I find just throwing in suspicions to be a pretty useless contribution to the discussion.

And oh, feel free to give that simple yes-or-no-answer to my last paragraph – that wasn’t directed solely at BlackCat.

“@Leander: If the subject cannot tell whether their powers are working or not on a particular day, why should we believe they work on any day?”

So let’s say Usain Bolt is running the 100m distance, and think’s he’s outdone his world record. But he’s not. His subjective experience clouded his assertion of his performance. We all know how things can actually feel a lot different from how they actually are. His ability to judge his own performance doesn’t make any statement about the performance measured in the particular example, nor about his performance on any other day. Do you see how fallacious and misleading your attempt to correlate the two is ? I guess that was unintentional though, right ?

Surely you wouldn’t wanna lead the discussion away from what it ACTUALLY all comes down to: you can never universally disprove anything – be that a person’s ability to assess their performance, or the success of the performance itself. You can only disprove such a thing “beyond reasonable doubt”. And testing said thing on ONE SINGLE DAY doesn’t constitute “beyond reasonable doubt” in any scientifically valuable sense. So the point STILL stands, the MDC is scientifically useless – whether the subjects agreed to it, whether they can assess their performance, whether they achieve the results they claimed they were gonna achieve or not. Plain and simple. That’s pretty poor for “the coolest thing” the JREF is doing. And it leads me to…

Skeptics like to bring up the MDC – and the fact that noone who entered has successfully completed it, or that many claimants of paranormal gifts don’t enter – as an argument against the existence of paranormal gifts. Now if, as was established here so far, the MDC doesn’t make any scientifically valuable statement – aren’t skeptics who bring up the MDC and said facts as disproof of the existence of paranormal gifts misleading the public ?

One simple question – yes or no is sufficient, anything else is just plain dodging:
Shouldn’t anybody TRULY interested in educating (JREF comes to mind) people be interested in refuting these skeptics ? To demonstrate that the MDC is scientifically useless and does produce no scientificillally valauable result at all ? So if none of you here, including Phil, can make a worthy point to prove that the MDC is a scientific contribution to the debate – shouldn’t you be going out to take down those skeptics deluding the public into thinking that the MDC proves or disproves anything ? Yes or no. So simple.

It all comes down to this: if someone cannot tell whether their powers are working, then they cannot tell whether they have powers or not in the first place.

“Sure it does. It can disprove that the subject can tell between the paranormal and wishful thinking”

On that particular day. Is that what you’d call “beyond reasonable doubt” ? As far as I’m concerned, Greg’s point – as made in that last quote of his you replied to – still stands.

I would think that testing should be a longer term experiment (to enable more realistic benchmarks),

Why? If these people claim to be able to do this on demand with a very high degree of accuracy, this sort of longer-term experiment is unnecessary.

without the million dollars (to remove the carnival atmosphere). Kind of like how science works, y’know?

You can follow the same protocol without actually accepting the money, or even JREF’s involvement.

once more, the short sample size doesn’t allow for an ‘off day’,

As I said before, if the subject can have an off day, then the test can be set up to rule that out. The subject can have an unblinded test to make sure there powers are working properly, and then go into the blinded test only if there are not problems. If they are having an off day, the unblinded test would tell them that and they can reschedule. If they can’t tell whether their powers are working or not, then their opinion that they have powers in the first place is totally unreliable, no more reliable than someone pointing at a random person on the street and saying “this person has magical powers because I say so”.

and the million to one odds on the final challenge are a benchmark far above any reasonable test of ability

No, it isn’t. The benchmark is set based on their claimed level of performance. How many times do I have to say this. The subject says what he or she is able to achieve, and the tests are set up to see if they really can.

No, don’t put words in my mouth (and further compound the error by judging where I’m “approaching this from” on the basis of that). I said that having a testing board of aligned individuals would probably make any possible claimants rather suspicious of applying (and thus who could blame a high-profile ‘medium’/’psychic’/etc for not applying). I certainly did not say that “testing by a skeptic is automatically invalid”.

No, you said they justified in rejecting the million dollar challenge because testing was done by CSICOP members and other “aligned individuals”. Considering the testers often have no affiliation whatsoever with JREF or Randi I can only imagine anyone who is a skeptic is automatically “aligned”. So you are saying they are justified simply because the person doing the test is a skeptic.

All it shows is that Patricia Putt didn’t do very well on that day. That is, it’s useless. Apart from being an oddball challenge where possibly deluded and probably completely unpsychic individuals try and get lucky and win a million dollars in one-off attempts. Booyah, what a WOFTAM.

No, it shows a great deal more. It shows that Patricia Putt is incapable of telling whether she actually has powers or not. While the testing was going on she thought everything was going fine and her powers were working well. It was only after the results came in that she started claiming that the protocol was screwing up her powers. That show that she is incapable of telling whether her powers are working or not. If that is the case, then there is no reason to think she has powers ever, since any time she thought her powers were working they could very well have been failing just like they did during the test.

Which returns things to my central point. The MDC doesn’t disprove anything “beyond reasonable doubt”. It’s not science. It has no use apart from being a publicity tool. Overhyped; in fact, an embarrassment to modern skepticism given the reputation it has.

Sure it does. It can disprove that the subject can tell between the paranormal and wishful thinking (or can show the subject is a charlatan and a liar, in some cases).

Oh, and the acronym would be GASG, not GAGS (for AndyD and JSug)…

I would think that testing should be a longer term experiment (to enable more realistic benchmarks), without the million dollars (to remove the carnival atmosphere). Kind of like how science works, y’know?

@TheBlackCat: “Claimants are tested at the performance level they claim to be able to perform at. The tests are designed to determine whether the person can do what they claim to be able to do. That is it. I still don’t understand what you think is so terrible and so unfair about that. ”

If they agree to the MDC, ala Patricia Putt, then I think they put themselves up as fair game. That doesn’t mean it’s a fair test of whether they have their alleged ability (once more, the short sample size doesn’t allow for an ‘off day’, and the million to one odds on the final challenge are a benchmark far above any reasonable test of ability).

also @TheBlackCat: “And you know this how? Sorry if we are not going to take your word for it.”

Apart from others’ anecdotes – and the experience of Rupert Sheldrake mentioned in my article is one public example. (Note also in my follow-up to Randi’s reply, I point out how deftly he manipulates dialogue, such as his thoughts on Dick Bierman’s challenge application.)

But I know this for a fact from the email exchange I had with Randi after I published my article, where he told me that the ‘errors’ he made in his reply article (which I had asked him to fix) – where he misrepresented the views of a certain person – were intentional, and on the basis of his personal beef with that person. The errors remain, despite my protests.

But you are right not to trust my opinion, or anyone else’s, when it comes to such things. The sensible thing to do though would be to apply as much critical thinking to the claims of James Randi as to others.

@TheBlackCat: “In other words, any testing by a skeptic is automatically invalid? Thanks, that tells us a great deal about where you are approaching this from.”

No, don’t put words in my mouth (and further compound the error by judging where I’m “approaching this from” on the basis of that). I said that having a testing board of aligned individuals would probably make any possible claimants rather suspicious of applying (and thus who could blame a high-profile ‘medium’/'psychic’/etc for not applying). I certainly did not say that “testing by a skeptic is automatically invalid”.

@AndyD: “The thing is that when we look back at every challenger, it seems they ALL have bad days on that given day.”

Indeed. But that’s not what I’m arguing at all. My opinion is that anybody who would submit themselves to the MDC has poor judgement and may well be deluded (given the benchmarks, likely failure, and subsequent adverse publicity). I’d say Patricia Putt probably has no psychic talent, if there is such a thing at all. My point though, was that the MDC shows no such thing. All it shows is that Patricia Putt didn’t do very well on that day. That is, it’s useless. Apart from being an oddball challenge where possibly deluded and probably completely unpsychic individuals try and get lucky and win a million dollars in one-off attempts. Booyah, what a WOFTAM.

In short, I disagree vehemently with Phil that the MDC is the “coolest thing” that the JREF does. At least, I hope it’s not. I’d hope the coolest thing an educational institution does is…educate.

@Jsug: “The main problem I see with your article is that it starts with the flawed assumption that JREF are trying to disprove the existence of the paranormal. That is not the intent of the JREF challenge, nor would it be possible to do so.”

That is in fact exactly my point. It can’t disprove the paranormal. It can’t even disprove the alleged ability of a self-labeled psychic. So what is the point of it, and why is it the “coolest thing” the JREF do?

The fact is though – despite your protestation – that Randi, the JREF, and numerous ill-informed ‘skeptics’ use the MDC as an *implied* disproving of the paranormal (for rhetorical/publicity reasons mostly). See my earlier post where I linked to Randi’s post about Dean Radin (“if the Radin and Sheldrake declarations were really true and properly derived, then they would stand as good evidence for the reality of parapsychology, and would incidentally make the writers eligible for the JREF million-dollar prize. As we know, Sheldrake has directly refused to apply for that prize, and Radin has made the same decision by choosing to ignore it.”)

“Incidentally”. No, I don’t think that’s how I’d define Randi’s introduction of the MDC at that point in the discussion…

And finally, back to

@TheBlackCat: “The “beyond reasonable doubt” part is where the problems arise. Woo proponents define “reasonable” very differently than most scientists do. There is a difference between disproving beyond reasonable doubt and disproving beyond any doubt whatsoever. The former is what science does, the latter is what many woo proponents demand.”

Which returns things to my central point. The MDC doesn’t disprove anything “beyond reasonable doubt”. It’s not science. It has no use apart from being a publicity tool. Overhyped; in fact, an embarrassment to modern skepticism given the reputation it has.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/may/26/you-ask-neals-yard-remedies?showallcomments=true

Somehow I’m reading your comment like philosophy is just so much woo.

I think I like that.

BTW, if Putt claims she can read anybody at any time, then 5 out of 10 would be an extremely bad day. That’s probably why she agreed to 5 of 10 in the first place.

That is too bad for logic, since it is done by science all the time. In fact, it is what testing is, disproving facts and theories beyond reasonable doubt.

The “beyond reasonable doubt” part is where the problems arise. Woo proponents define “reasonable” very differently than most scientists do. There is a difference between disproving beyond reasonable doubt and disproving beyond any doubt whatsoever. The former is what science does, the latter is what many woo proponents demand.

It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

That is too bad for logic, since it is done by science all the time. In fact, it is what testing is, disproving facts and theories beyond reasonable doubt.

Also, there are many explicit theories of universal nonexistence, say of hidden variables or more powerful algorithmic (computable) systems than Turing.

May I suggest that basic areas of logic are non-overlapping, say predicate logic vs intuitionist logic. So you can’t make universal statements out of such fragile systems.

The same goes for formal math. It is but when you employ the full power of algorithmic methods, as underlies physics, where you can start to see the underlying monism of natural objects.

This other problem, that formal systems aren’t powerful enough to comprehend physics, is a show-stopper for philosophy.