ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF » Million Dollar Challenge
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags carina landin

Reply
Old 16th January 2008, 04:40 PM   #361
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
You can choose which meaning for "henchmen" that you believe is appropriate.
...
Since it was your post, your choice is relevant.

Which is?

Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
...
And if slipping in a couple of cookbooks in amongst what were supposed to be diaries isn't "slight of hand" then I stand corrected.

OOPS that should be "sleight"
Your knowing and willing over-simplification of the matter at hand and your continued intellectual dishonesty - which confirms the previous outings you displayed e.g. here - do not warrant anything else but to treat you as a troll, Monsieur année lumière.
Your response to the inquiry above will surely confirm that assertion.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2008, 03:07 AM   #362
whatthebutlersaw
Dessert Arsonist
 
whatthebutlersaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,026
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
...snip... (as I believe the custom is)
If an individual takes the time to daily record their feelings about their lives and the world for a period of years, we can safely say that the journal was important to them. If it wasn't at the time they started, then certainly it was by the time they finished. I am unable to think of any other reason for a years-long journal to exist. Perhaps I'm dense.
No, I would not suggest that misunderstanding has anything to do with being dense - I would suggest it is a cultural difference.

You can not safely say that a diary kept, ever so faithfully and passionately, by a Swedish person, in itself was dear to the person.

From the fact that the feelings you record are strong, or from frequency of the use of the diary you can not deduct a strong emotional attachment to the thing in itself. The book can for some people (people like me) be just a collection of paper bound together. The attachment to the book is not obligated to be stronger than the attachement to the pen with which the same feelings were written.

I myself have kept a journal for several years. I have recorded some major events in my life and poured out my feelings about them regularly. Yet - I feel no more attachment to the book than I do to the pencils I used and I never go back and re-read what I have written. I do not gaze lovingly at the filled book or remember with warmth the times I spent filling it. I am not an anomaly in any way. A very passionate and warm hearted friend of mine kept daily journals for ten years. She kept them in notepads and one day she realized that her notepads were starting to be a storage problem. So she burned them.

These days, I have stopped keeping a paper diary and pour my feelings out on a USB thingy that I call my "journal". I don't have a strong emotional attachment to that either. When it is full, I wipe it and start filling it again. (Probably bad for future generations of my family who would really like to know what life was like in the naughties to their great grandmama, but I take no responsiblity for that.)

Assuming that every diary kept has a strong emotional bond to the owner is assuming that every person in the world function in the same way. I love my Michael Caine adorned teamug more than I love my wedding ring (I got them both from my husband, but the mug was chosen from his knowing me so well - the ring was just a formality) and I certainly love my copy of Carpe Jugulum more than I love my own, old diaries ('cos Terry Pratchett is a good writer and I 'ent. Also, it once saved my life.) Do you know where I keep my wedding dress? Me neither - yet many british women would assume that that and my wedding ring would be oh so dear to me. They would assume it so much that it would never enter their minds that it could be any different - they would take it as self evident - yes they would say that they could safely say I cherished them, and they couldn't be more wrong. If I hadn't just told you, you might have assumed the same thing.

People just aren't that alike. If we enter the territory of assuming whether an object is fit for being testing material or not, then we are really just guessing.

I still hold that she has, under the premises given, made an untestable claim. I am the first to acknowledge that my own suggestion is far from close enough. The probability that a Swedish emigrant from Smaland in the late eighteen hundreds was emotionally attached to his/her psalm book if they brought it with them across the Atlantic, is slightly higher than that any given person's diary is dear to them - especially if they are Swedish- but it is not high enough to my mind.

Swedish people, generally, aren't very... [I hesitate to use the word as it can carry some negative value for some people, but I don't mean it in any negative way] ...sentimental. (Unless pets are involved, then we cry like pansies) That doesn't mean no Swedes are sentimental - we vary like any other population but you just can't know if a Swedish journal was actually dear to the author unless you can ask them yourself. I promise you, you can't.

As for the type A/type B thing: that was referring to the age of the journals and nothing else.
whatthebutlersaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2008, 08:06 PM   #363
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Buzz, since you seem to have valuable ideas, I'm sure the swedish testers would gladly welcome your input towards attaining proper material for Ms. Landin's re-test.
Well GZ, since you asked;
As this would just be a preliminary test to see if Carina has any abilities, why not try something without Randi "stacking the deck".
Something that remotely resembles science.

Do as whatthebutlersaw suggests and use, say, 10 psalm books.

Over a period of 10 days, at a time and place of Carina's choosing, she holds one book a day and in conjunction with her sitter, tells what she can about the owner of the book.

This event would be videotaped and put before a unbiased panel who would then adjudicate on her performance.
This videotape would also be made available on this website so that we also could make comments and judge for ourselves.

The chosen books would have belonged to people whose identity and history is readily available.

Last edited by buzz lightyear; 17th January 2008 at 08:08 PM.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2008, 10:07 PM   #364
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
Well GZ, since you asked;
As this would just be a preliminary test to see if Carina has any abilities, why not try something without Randi "stacking the deck".
Something that remotely resembles science.

Do as whatthebutlersaw suggests and use, say, 10 psalm books.

Over a period of 10 days, at a time and place of Carina's choosing, she holds one book a day and in conjunction with her sitter, tells what she can about the owner of the book.

This event would be videotaped and put before a unbiased panel who would then adjudicate on her performance.
This videotape would also be made available on this website so that we also could make comments and judge for ourselves.

The chosen books would have belonged to people whose identity and history is readily available.
There's a problem with your protocol: it requires people to make judgements. This is troublesome: someone is always going to disagree with the judgement, or claim that the panel is not, in fact, unbiased.

Your protocol has to be one that doesn't require judgement. Either she can do it, or she can't.

This is the reason for the protocol of identifying the gender of the (dead) person whose item she is holding. Either she gets it right, or she doesn't. (Unless she cares to argue that the person's gender identity was different than their actual physical sex. So this protocol might not so good after all.)
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 02:50 AM   #365
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
Well GZ, since you asked;
As this would just be a preliminary test to see if Carina has any abilities, why not try something without Randi "stacking the deck".
Something that remotely resembles science.

Do as whatthebutlersaw suggests and use, say, 10 psalm books.

Over a period of 10 days, at a time and place of Carina's choosing, she holds one book a day and in conjunction with her sitter, tells what she can about the owner of the book.

This event would be videotaped and put before a unbiased panel who would then adjudicate on her performance.
This videotape would also be made available on this website so that we also could make comments and judge for ourselves.

The chosen books would have belonged to people whose identity and history is readily available.
You still refuse to give your definition of "henchman" in this context. Quelle surprise.



Problems with your proposal:
1. A sample size of 10 is considered too small.
2. The proposed test duration makes it very difficult to account for the schedules of all people involved.
3. Testing can not involve judgment. Test results have to be self-evident.

All those issues have repeatedly come up during the negotiations and discussions in this forum.
#3 reveals your blatant misunderstanding of how the MDC - and, since you brought it up, to a lesser extent: science - works.

(The punctuation blows but the point remains valid.)
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 03:43 AM   #366
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
There's a problem with your protocol: it requires people to make judgements. This is troublesome: someone is always going to disagree with the judgement, or claim that the panel is not, in fact, unbiased.

Your protocol has to be one that doesn't require judgement. Either she can do it, or she can't.

This is the reason for the protocol of identifying the gender of the (dead) person whose item she is holding. Either she gets it right, or she doesn't. (Unless she cares to argue that the person's gender identity was different than their actual physical sex. So this protocol might not so good after all.)
For 10 years Randi has brandished this challenge as his proof of the nonexistence of psychic phenomena. To do this he has turned their original proposal into a game show trick, of yes/no.

This has been a deliberate ploy just in case someone did something that was unexplainable. He could just say "they failed the test" according to the protocols, end of story.

This is Carina's original proposal.
If she can do what she says, Blind Freddie will be able to see it.

If she is a fake the same will also obvious.


I can let dead persons take contact through me.

If I hold an article like a ring, a peace of jewellrey or something else which has belonged to the dead person, I can most of the times make a contact with the former owner of the peace.

I describe the dead persons by telling my sitter about how they looked like, what caused their death (or how they passed over), diseases, sometimes what they worked with, personality and so on, and I have a message to my sitter about his/her situation today, in the future or real personal message from the dead person to my sitter about their relationship.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 03:57 AM   #367
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,537
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
I can let dead persons take contact through me.

If I hold an article like a ring, a peace of jewellrey or something else which has belonged to the dead person, I can most of the times make a contact with the former owner of the peace.

I describe the dead persons by telling my sitter about how they looked like, what caused their death (or how they passed over), diseases, sometimes what they worked with, personality and so on, and I have a message to my sitter about his/her situation today, in the future or real personal message from the dead person to my sitter about their relationship.
If she can do all that, what exactly is the problem with identifying the gender? If anything, this is stacking the deck in the applicant's favour. Instead of having to give a whole big reading with plenty of opportunity to get things wrong, all she has to do is identify the single most obvious thing about a person.

Which comes to the whole point of the challenge. The protocol as used is incredibly easy for the applicant to pass if she can do what she claims. If, on the other hand, she can't do what she claims, then the protocol makes it much harder for her. Which is the whole point. If she can really talk to dead people, it would be virtually impossible for her not to pass. If she's actually just cold reading, she has almost no chance of passing, no matter how good she looks when giving vague readings.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 04:40 AM   #368
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,307
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
This is Carina's original proposal.
If she can do what she says, Blind Freddie will be able to see it.
No, it is not so easy. Vaguely worded readings can be interpreted in many ways, and "psychics" like Carina are doing it all the time, although they have no psychic ability whatsoever. If Carina produced several pages of information about the owners of the books, how would you rate the inevitable hits among the inevitable misses? If she claims "the owner has a connection with water", what would you take that to mean exactly?

Quote:
I can let dead persons take contact through me.

If I hold an article like a ring, a peace of jewellrey or something else which has belonged to the dead person, I can most of the times make a contact with the former owner of the peace.

I describe the dead persons by telling my sitter about how they looked like, what caused their death (or how they passed over), diseases, sometimes what they worked with, personality and so on, and I have a message to my sitter about his/her situation today, in the future or real personal message from the dead person to my sitter about their relationship.
The terms of the Challenge have been public for a long time. If Carina is not able to produce a claim that can be tested within the rules of the Challenge, that is her problem. In fact, she accepted the Challenge protocol, and has thereby also claimed that this was what she could do. She failed miserably, but the JREF has graciously allowed a small error (that affected the result in positive way for Carina) to result in a retest. Unfortunately, it is not possible to dig up more diaries, and Carina does not respond to new protocol changes. This is outside the control of the JREF, and they can hardly be blamed for that.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 10:08 AM   #369
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
<stuff>

If she can do what she says, Blind Freddie will be able to see it.

If she is a fake the same will also obvious.
Except that this is not true. Your statement does not allow for trickery. Some mentalist tricks -- and they are just simply tricks -- are extremely clever and convincing. Even unclever tricks have been fooling people for years (see Uri's spoonbending, for example).

This is why it is important to run a test that is objective, and to design a protocol that rules out the possible of intentional -- or unintentional -- cheating.

This is something you want, buzz. The whole point is to rule out all of the mundane possibilies so that the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION is that something paranormal is going on. If you want to believe in the paranormal, then you have GOT to want a protocol that is as trickery-tight and objective as possible.

Quote:
I can let dead persons take contact through me.

If I hold an article like a ring, a peace of jewellrey or something else which has belonged to the dead person, I can most of the times make a contact with the former owner of the peace.

I describe the dead persons by telling my sitter about how they looked like, what caused their death (or how they passed over), diseases, sometimes what they worked with, personality and so on, and I have a message to my sitter about his/her situation today, in the future or real personal message from the dead person to my sitter about their relationship.
So you have to find something that Landin can say about the deceased that is either conclusively right or wrong and NOT subject to judgement. Statements about a person's personality are subject to judgement (and cold readers take full use of this by throwing out general descriptions that could apply to anyone). Did a person have or not have a disease? Well, that's hard to tell, too -- a relative might say no, Aunt Janey didn't have bone disease, but the reader can just say "well, she didn't tell anyone because she didn't want to worry people". You'd have to exhume the body to test the veracity of the statement, and even then it might not be conclusive (depending on what disease the reader chose -- and if she's smart, she'll choose something that's hard to detect).

So what are you left with? Since Landin said that she can tell what the person looked like, she should be able to determine the person's sex. That, at least, should be fairly cut and dry: either she's right, or she's not. It's not subject to judgement. It doesn't rely on interpretation.

Again, buzz, if you believe in Landin, then this is the direction you should want to go. You should want to eliminate all fuzziness, all opportunities for people to judge her wrong (for whatever personal agendas they might have), or to argue about the results. There should be no opportunity for her to have gleaned the information by, say, the style of the items she's holding, so that she doesn't get any conscious or unconscious clues as to the gender (and thusly, in all probability, the sex) of the owner. There should be NO POSSIBLE EXPLANATION EXCEPT for the fact that she has the ability she claims.

I don't understand why someone seeking to champion her as an actual psychic could possibly insist that it be done any other way.
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 03:12 PM   #370
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
For 10 years Randi has brandished this challenge as his proof of the nonexistence of psychic phenomena.
Wrong. Randi challenges people to prove their claims. Biiig difference.

Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
To do this he has turned their original proposal into a game show trick, of yes/no.
Wrong. Every applicant has to state in advance what they will do and how they will prove it.

Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
This has been a deliberate ploy just in case someone did something that was unexplainable.
Wrong. Randi has said many times that he would welcome a new realm of physics.

Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
He could just say "they failed the test" according to the protocols, end of story.
...
If applicants failed the test according to the protocols - to protocols they themselves agreed upon before the tests - it seems fair to conclude that they do not have what they claim to have. The performed tests are usually easily reproducable for the task of getting a bigger data sample size.



The procedures of the JREF Challenge have been explained to you before, buzz lightyear. Your deliberate misunderstanding seems to serve solely for the purpose of your repeated trolling.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2008, 05:14 PM   #371
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
There has been an update in the Carina Landin case. Check out her thread in Challenge Applications for more information.
RemieV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 01:53 AM   #372
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
There has been an update in the Carina Landin case. Check out her thread in Challenge Applications for more information.
Interesting turn of events RemieV.

Got me scratching my head.

The reason that I became interested in this "challenge" was that I originally believed she was practicing psychometry.
This is my field of interest.

But if she has chosen to be tested with letters it becomes something all together different.
The letters may be of little interest to the original author, but may have been lovingly carried for a lifetime by the recipient.

If this was the case the recipients "energy" would be prominent.

I look forward to the ensuing sideshow.

Last edited by buzz lightyear; 19th January 2008 at 02:00 AM.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 04:56 AM   #373
Reno
Inquisitor
 
Reno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
The reason that I became interested in this "challenge" was that I originally believed she was practicing psychometry.
This is my field of interest.
I thought your field of interest was giant reptiles and goat-chasing monsters that live under bridges.
__________________
"You're entitled to your opinion; you're just not entitled to have it taken seriously when you can offer no evidence to support it." - Garrison

"I am the danger." - Heisenberg
Reno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 09:31 AM   #374
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by Reno View Post
I thought your field of interest was giant reptiles and goat-chasing monsters that live under bridges.
And ethnogens.

Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
...
If this was the case the recipients "energy" would be prominent.
...
If you could "prove" that you would win a million dollars. Of course you won't.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 08:06 PM   #375
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
If you could "prove" that you would win a million dollars. Of course you won't.
Well GZ, since you probably are a good, but slightly simplistic boy, I will put the problems associated with dealing with the spirit world in a form that you might understand.

Lets use the metaphor of your life, in terms of a singer with and orchestra in front an audience.
The stage is bathed in spotlights and the audience is in darkness.
You are the singer and your life is your performance. The orchestra is life going on around you and the audience is the spirit world watching you.

As you go about your performance, the "noise" you and the orchestra create drown out anything coming from the audience.
The only time that you could be aware of the audience is when someone clapped or yelled out, and this could only be heard when both you and the orchestra were quiet. And this is assuming that the audience actually wanted to respond to you.

So to get "the audience" to respond, and you hear them, while you are trying to fill your pockets with money would be difficult, to say the least.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2008, 10:55 PM   #376
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
 
Gr8wight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
Well GZ, since you probably are a good, but slightly simplistic boy, I will put the problems associated with dealing with the spirit world in a form that you might understand.

Lets use the metaphor of your life, in terms of a singer with and orchestra in front an audience.
The stage is bathed in spotlights and the audience is in darkness.
You are the singer and your life is your performance. The orchestra is life going on around you and the audience is the spirit world watching you.

As you go about your performance, the "noise" you and the orchestra create drown out anything coming from the audience.
The only time that you could be aware of the audience is when someone clapped or yelled out, and this could only be heard when both you and the orchestra were quiet. And this is assuming that the audience actually wanted to respond to you.

So to get "the audience" to respond, and you hear them, while you are trying to fill your pockets with money would be difficult, to say the least.
Evidence please.
__________________
Aurora Walking Vacation

"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."--Marshall McLuhan
Gr8wight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 03:12 AM   #377
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,539
Originally Posted by Gr8wight View Post
Evidence please.
Buzz, if you respond, please start a new thread to present the requested evidence, to keep this one on topic.
Thanks.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 04:55 AM   #378
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
Well GZ, since you probably are a good, but slightly simplistic boy, I will put the problems associated with dealing with the spirit world in a form that you might understand.

Lets use the metaphor of your life, in terms of a singer with and orchestra in front an audience.
The stage is bathed in spotlights and the audience is in darkness.
You are the singer and your life is your performance. The orchestra is life going on around you and the audience is the spirit world watching you.

As you go about your performance, the "noise" you and the orchestra create drown out anything coming from the audience.
The only time that you could be aware of the audience is when someone clapped or yelled out, and this could only be heard when both you and the orchestra were quiet. And this is assuming that the audience actually wanted to respond to you.

So to get "the audience" to respond, and you hear them, while you are trying to fill your pockets with money would be difficult, to say the least.
Originally Posted by Gr8wight View Post
Evidence please.
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
Buzz, if you respond, please start a new thread to present the requested evidence, to keep this one on topic.
Thanks.

We have been here before.


All of buzz lightyear's criticism has been dealt with in the above thread. In short: He won't provide evidence for his claims. He will accuse the JREF Challenge of acting dishonorable towards applicants.




To get back on track: Since Carina Landin herself proposed using letters, do you assume she doesn't know what she's doing and what evidence do you have to be able to claim "If this was the case the recipients "energy" would be prominent."?
Keeping in mind that the JREF Challenge is about dealing with the claim of an applicant.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 02:03 PM   #379
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,801
Buzz, you still haven't responded to the point I made, which is that any true test of someone's psychic abilities must have objective results -- that is, it must not be subject to judgement. Do you understand this, and do you understand why? And do you understand, therefore, that your proposed protocol is unsatisfactory because it involves a "panel of judges"?
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 02:09 PM   #380
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post

We have been here before.


All of buzz lightyear's criticism has been dealt with in the above thread. In short: He won't provide evidence for his claims. He will accuse the JREF Challenge of acting dishonorable towards applicants.



To get back on track: Since Carina Landin herself proposed using letters, do you assume she doesn't know what she's doing and what evidence do you have to be able to claim "If this was the case the recipients "energy" would be prominent."?
Keeping in mind that the JREF Challenge is about dealing with the claim of an applicant.
OK GZ, lets see if I can do this and keep on topic, as requested.

At this point I am beginning to think that Carina is a fake.
In her original proposal she stated that she would do two psychic feats, psychometry and spirit possession.
She would, by holding an object, be able to tell about aspects of its deceased owner. This is psychometry.
She then claims to be able to make contact with the deceased person and allow them to speak through her. This is spirit possession.

The psychometry is possible, but to do the spirit possession usually involves a trance state. To knock over 5 of these in a day would be impossible.
To then choose letters, which may have only been in the authors possession for a few minutes, over psalm books which may have been in a persons possession a lifetime, to perform psychometry, doesn't sound as though she is on the money.

And GR8, for all of us there is a time when we stop singing and the orchestra takes a break, it's when we are asleep.
Ever had weird dreams?
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2008, 05:30 PM   #381
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
...
To then choose letters, which may have only been in the authors possession for a few minutes, over psalm books which may have been in a persons possession a lifetime, to perform psychometry, doesn't sound as though she is on the money.
...
You still obviously misunderstand the nature of the JREF Challenge, buzz:

1. An applicant makes a claim.
2. Said claim is accepted by the JREF.
3. A test protocol is mutually agreed upon..
4. Should Ms. Landin achieve the success scenario of said protocol in two controlled tests, she wins the million.

Should Ms. Landin identify the correct gender on at least 18 out of 20 tries - in two seperate tests to minimize the chance of a statistical fluke - my hat goes off to her.

I forgot #0: Hypotheses are irrelevant.




Entertaining as they might be when someone seems to outcrazy another person.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 01:54 AM   #382
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Buzz, you still haven't responded to the point I made, which is that any true test of someone's psychic abilities must have objective results -- that is, it must not be subject to judgement. Do you understand this, and do you understand why? And do you understand, therefore, that your proposed protocol is unsatisfactory because it involves a "panel of judges"?
As you stated, Jackalgirl, trickery is the problem.
When you dangle a million dollar carrot, you can expect all sort of skullduggery.

Herein lies the problem with the MDC.

If these test were conducted without this "carrot" the charlatans would disappear. The tests could become experiments.

The people who came forward would be sincere, and so would testers.
No axes to grind, no points to prove, no benefit for either party except the acquisition of understanding and knowledge.

In fact if JREF did this type of experiment they might deserve the right to use the term "Educational" in their name.
Perhaps it is time that million was finally put to good use.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 05:21 AM   #383
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,307
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
If these test were conducted without this "carrot" the charlatans would disappear. The tests could become experiments.
And nobody would show up to be tested.

The economic incitement certainly lures the charlatans to the MDC, and in our opinion all performers of paranormal feats are charlatans - or at least seriously deluded. People who would come forward without the prospect of a million dollars could do so easily without involving the JREF.

Quote:
The people who came forward would be sincere, and so would testers.
No axes to grind, no points to prove, no benefit for either party except the acquisition of understanding and knowledge.
The tester normally have no relation to the JREF, as in the Landin case where the testers are not gaining any economic benefit by performing the test for the JREF. If you think the testers are dishonest, they would have just as much reason to be dishonest without the million dollars as with it.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 07:03 AM   #384
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
As you stated, Jackalgirl, trickery is the problem.
When you dangle a million dollar carrot, you can expect all sort of skullduggery.

Herein lies the problem with the MDC.

If these test were conducted without this "carrot" the charlatans would disappear. The tests could become experiments.

The people who came forward would be sincere, and so would testers.
No axes to grind, no points to prove, no benefit for either party except the acquisition of understanding and knowledge.

In fact if JREF did this type of experiment they might deserve the right to use the term "Educational" in their name.
Perhaps it is time that million was finally put to good use.
That doesn't answer my point. Do you understand the requirement, in any proper testing protocol, for objective results?

Last edited by Jackalgirl; 21st January 2008 at 07:04 AM.
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 01:36 PM   #385
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
That doesn't answer my point. Do you understand the requirement, in any proper testing protocol, for objective results?
Yes Jackalgirl, I can understand why the JREF uses the type of protocols it does for the "challenge".

But is a bit like using a very coarse sieve when you are looking for a very tiny object.

And when you are claiming that you your test is verification of the non existence of something you should be using the finest sieve possible.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 01:45 PM   #386
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
Yes Jackalgirl, I can understand why the JREF uses the type of protocols it does for the "challenge".

But is a bit like using a very coarse sieve when you are looking for a very tiny object.

And when you are claiming that you your test is verification of the non existence of something you should be using the finest sieve possible.
Oh Monsieur année lumière, when will your giant neuron cluster process this information:

The JREF Challenge does not verify the non-existence of something.

The JREF challenges applicants to prove their claims.



And you still seem to have dodged Jackalgirl's question.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 02:13 PM   #387
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Oh Monsieur année lumière, when will your giant neuron cluster process this information:

The JREF Challenge does not verify the non-existence of something.

The JREF challenges applicants to prove their claims.



And you still seem to have dodged Jackalgirl's question.

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.


Do you see the word "evidence" GZ.
I would call "evidence" the slightest detectable trace.

Wouldn't you?
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2008, 04:33 PM   #388
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
...
Do you see the word "evidence" GZ.
I would call "evidence" the slightest detectable trace.

Wouldn't you?
If there's a (very real) mountain vs. an (imagined) drop of evidence, I'll most likely go with the mountain.

Without discarding the theoretical possibility of the drop becoming a very real ocean.




How would you say Ms. Landin and the JREF should devise the protocol along the proposal of Ms. Landin to use letters? Can you give us your test proposal in this case for finding "the slightest detectable trace"?
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2008, 12:12 AM   #389
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,307
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
And when you are claiming that you your test is verification of the non existence of something you should be using the finest sieve possible.
You got this wrong: The tests in the MDC are not designed to look for the non-existence of something, but for the existence of something (paranormal abilities).
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2008, 01:38 AM   #390
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
You got this wrong: The tests in the MDC are not designed to look for the non-existence of something, but for the existence of something (paranormal abilities).
Interesting steenkh, I distinctly remember hearing a small bearded gentleman spouting off that his "proof", that paranormal abilities did not exist, was that no one in 10 years had been able to succeed in his "challenge".

Could be wrong, getting old, memory fading and all that.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2008, 02:05 AM   #391
Ravenwood
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 614
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
I have bolded the relevant part you seem to keep missing...
__________________
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
-Rush, "Free Will"
Ravenwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2008, 02:50 AM   #392
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,307
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
Interesting steenkh, I distinctly remember hearing a small bearded gentleman spouting off that his "proof", that paranormal abilities did not exist, was that no one in 10 years had been able to succeed in his "challenge".
Exactly. The tests are designed to look for paranormality. The fact that even with a large economic incentive, nothing has come up, can be taken as a proof that there is nothing there.

But neither I, nor Randi are thinking of "proof" as in "absolute proof", because we are well aware that the non-existence of paranormality cannot be proven. But the likelihood that paranormal phenomena exist can be reduced to such low probabilities that we can safely say that they do not exist. That is what is meant by "proof".
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2008, 06:27 AM   #393
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by buzz lightyear View Post
Yes Jackalgirl, I can understand why the JREF uses the type of protocols it does for the "challenge".

But is a bit like using a very coarse sieve when you are looking for a very tiny object.

And when you are claiming that you your test is verification of the non existence of something you should be using the finest sieve possible.
Do you really mean to imply that requiring an objective measure of a test's success or failure renders it a less believable or valid test than one (such as the one you proposed) that relies on subjective judgement? Are you actually trying to say that an objective test is less precise than a subjective one?

My original question, by the way, was not "do you understand why the JREF requires objective means for measuring whether a test is successful or not." It was:

Do you understand the requirement, in any proper testing protocol, for objective results?

(Emphasis mine, since you don't seem to get it.)

How could you, as a believer in and a party interested in psychic phenomena possibly accept any test that is not objective? Don't you want a test to prove, beyond a doubt, that something is going on? I'm not talking about JREF protocols specifically here. I'm talking about any test protocol.

I get the very strong feeling that you don't really grok the meanings of the words "objective" and "subjective".

Last edited by Jackalgirl; 22nd January 2008 at 06:29 AM.
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2008, 08:46 AM   #394
petre
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
I always find it amusing when someone with a very forgiving view of what constitutes positive evidence holds a very rigorous view of what they will accept as contra-positive proof. Such an attitude applied to scientific study would require millennia to sort through the chaff that is real-world data and arrive at any meaningful understanding of basic principles.
petre is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2008, 04:24 PM   #395
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Please check the Challenge Applicants section for new information on Carina Landin, and write to challenge@randi.org if you'd like to help.
RemieV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2008, 04:34 PM   #396
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
...
How would you say Ms. Landin and the JREF should devise the protocol along the proposal of Ms. Landin to use letters? Can you give us your test proposal in this case for finding "the slightest detectable trace"?
Constructive propositions, senor ano luz?



Remie, since it's not specifically mentioned I assume they do not need to be handwritten letters? And thanks for the update.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2008, 05:32 PM   #397
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Constructive propositions, senor ano luz?



Remie, since it's not specifically mentioned I assume they do not need to be handwritten letters? And thanks for the update.
It is not specifically mentioned, but according to her previous claims, I would assume that they would have to be. I will ask for clarification, but I am nearly positive.
RemieV is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2008, 07:05 PM   #398
buzz lightyear
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Constructive propositions, senor ano luz?



Remie, since it's not specifically mentioned I assume they do not need to be handwritten letters? And thanks for the update.
Ano luz.............Buzz Ano luz...................love it!

So cool GZ.

Well, since Carina has dropped the "dead folks" thing altogether and is having a go at psychometry, it probably wouldn't hurt to ask if she could tell anything about the contents of the letter, beside the sex of the author.

Since, as Jackalgirl has so clearly pointed out, this has to be an "objective" test, these "by the way" comments should not effect the outcome.

The reason that I believe this would give a clearer picture of her abilities is that emotion is usually the most easily detected aspect with psychometry.
More so than the sex of the person involved.
If she were to say "this person was sad" or "this is a love letter" it would be, in my experience, a more realistic demonstration.

But, hey, it's her show!

Good luck Carina.
buzz lightyear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2008, 08:24 PM   #399
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,801
Buzz, why do you put the word "objective" in quotes when you use it?
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2008, 08:13 AM   #400
petre
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
Well I suppose printed e-mails are out ;P

I haven't sent a hand-written letter since about the 7th grade. They could be as difficult to find as diaries. Good luck anyway.
petre is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » Welcome to ISF » Other Skeptical Organizations » JREF » Million Dollar Challenge

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.