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
 


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 19th September 2007, 09:58 AM   #281
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
I don't understand why there's even discussion of wedding rings or anything else.

Either the protocol was followed or it wasn't. If it wasn't, you throw out the results, and re-test following the protocol.

If there aren't more diaries of the appropriate age, then the protocol was followed (the "as far as possible" clause), and the failure stands.

If there are any diaries that aren't older, then re-test with as many of those as can be used (i.e. minimizing how many of the older ones are used).

I haven't heard any reason why some of the diaries used in the first test can't be re-used. If there is a reason they can't be re-used, then I think it's still possible to follow the protocol--use as many of the less-old diaries as possible. If you do that, you will be following the protocol, even if there are more older diaries this time around.

In other words, I don't think there's any need (or justification) for renegotiating the protocol at this point.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler 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 September 2007, 02:52 PM   #282
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
We are continuing correspondence with the testers to hopefully get answers to all these questions. I have not, as yet, received a response.
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 1st October 2007, 08:43 AM   #283
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Still nothing?
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler 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 1st October 2007, 11:58 PM   #284
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Still nothing. No response of any kind.
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 4th October 2007, 01:41 AM   #285
chran
Muse
 
chran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark, yo
Posts: 629
I e-mailed Sven-Ove Hansson (the coordinator of the first test) back in May and haven't received a response to that either.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=266
chran 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 October 2007, 05:06 AM   #286
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by chran View Post
I e-mailed Sven-Ove Hansson (the coordinator of the first test) back in May and haven't received a response to that either.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=266
This may come across as a tad righteous, indulge me.

Is it just me or does Mr. Hansson seem to not be the most communicative person around? I recall there being communication issues before the first Carina Landin test. There may be a reason for it and of course Mr. Hansson does not need to explain every little action. He probably does it on his own time, without being paid, etc.

But it does not help this matter, does it? It provides fodder for bashers claiming JREF does not run proper tests, even if it just touches the administrative part of the testing process.
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 5th October 2007, 12:05 AM   #287
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
This may come across as a tad righteous, indulge me.

Is it just me or does Mr. Hansson seem to not be the most communicative person around? I recall there being communication issues before the first Carina Landin test. There may be a reason for it and of course Mr. Hansson does not need to explain every little action. He probably does it on his own time, without being paid, etc.

But it does not help this matter, does it? It provides fodder for bashers claiming JREF does not run proper tests, even if it just touches the administrative part of the testing process.

This test has been unfortunate, to say the least, but we cannot improve it or run it again without cooperation. However, the JREF is aware that this test did not go as planned. I think that is a very important fact for those who believe the tests are faulty to consider. We're aware of it and working on it. Not sweeping it under the rug
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 16th October 2007, 02:44 AM   #288
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
I have received the following response from Sven Ove:

Quote:
Sorry for late answer.

I had an e-mail exchange with her a few months ago. I offered her to make a similar test with letters (letters from a man to a man vs letters from a woman to a woman) but she does not seem to be very interested in anything similar to the previus test.

Instead she proposed to use wedding rings of deceased, but imposed conditions that are in practice not possible to satisfy so I doubt whether she is interested in being tested any more. I have not heard from her for long.

Yours / Sven Ove
I tried to confirm this information with Ms. Landin, but the e-mail address we have for her is down.
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 16th October 2007, 04:38 AM   #289
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 23,984
Maybe reality has arrived.

I wonder how she earns her money now?
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 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 16th October 2007, 05:21 AM   #290
Georg
Graduate Poster
 
Georg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 1,344
Her homepage is still online.
I do not speak Swedish, but I would guess
Quote:
2007-09-01 - Jag har ny mailadress landin@blixtmail.se
means something like: Thatīs my new e-mail address.

If thatīs the one you tried, I apologize for being a wiseass, if thatīs news for you Iīm glad being able to help.
Georg 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 16th October 2007, 02:00 PM   #291
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Georg View Post
Her homepage is still online.
I do not speak Swedish, but I would guess


means something like: Thatīs my new e-mail address.

If thatīs the one you tried, I apologize for being a wiseass, if thatīs news for you Iīm glad being able to help.
That address is not the one we have on file, so thanks! That is a help. I'm sending the e-mail to that address now.
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 16th October 2007, 02:07 PM   #292
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Quote:
I had an e-mail exchange with her a few months ago. I offered her to make a similar test with letters (letters from a man to a man vs letters from a woman to a woman) but she does not seem to be very interested in anything similar to the previus test.

Instead she proposed to use wedding rings of deceased, but imposed conditions that are in practice not possible to satisfy so I doubt whether she is interested in being tested any more. I have not heard from her for long.
I still don't understand why letter or wedding rings are even being considered. There was an agreed upon protocol. There is some question whether the protocol was followed. If it was not, then there ought be other diaries available.

If there are not, then the protocol was indeed followed (the key phrase was "as far as possible"), and she failed.

If "as far as possible" is not a legitimate translation of the original, can we clarify that?
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler 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 October 2007, 12:56 AM   #293
Georg
Graduate Poster
 
Georg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 1,344
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
That address is not the one we have on file, so thanks! That is a help. I'm sending the e-mail to that address now.
You are welcome. And good luck with your task.
Georg 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 October 2007, 09:51 AM   #294
scratchy
Muse
 
scratchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Georg View Post
Her homepage is still online.
I do not speak Swedish, but I would guess means something like: Thatīs my new e-mail address.
I speak it and thats an accurate translation.
scratchy 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 October 2007, 06:45 AM   #295
Georg
Graduate Poster
 
Georg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 1,344
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
I'm sending the e-mail to that address now.
Did she answer?
Georg 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 October 2007, 03:11 PM   #296
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
I have just received an e-mail from Ms. Landin. Here it is:

Quote:
Dear Ms Smith,

as a matter of fact, I sent a new protocol to Sven-Owe Hanson already in November last year and in the beginning of this year we also had some contact by phone. He told me that my new protocol was suitable for a test, however he thought it could be difficult to get hold of 14 rings.

About 3-4 months ago I sent 2-3 mail to Sven-Owe Hanson asking how things are developing, but received no answer from him. As it seems to be difficult to get response from him, I have not tried to contact him since then. However I sent him in August my new e-mail address.

I am seriously interested to carry out a new test, but I am under the impression that Sven-Owe Hanson definitely is not. After all preparing the previous test took almost 2,5 year, which shows that he does not use much time for this project.

Best regards,

Carina Landin
I suppose now I'll be writing to Mr. Ove again.
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 20th October 2007, 09:24 PM   #297
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Thanks for the update. When you write to Mr. Ove could you ask why he is even considering a new protocol? If the problem is that the agreed-upon protocol wasn't followed, can't we just address that? (If there aren't more diaries available, then the protocol WAS followed, and she failed, and that's that.) Is there any reason some of the same diaries can't be reused? (She wasn't told at any point which were right and which were wrong, was she? If so--why?)
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler 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 October 2007, 12:59 AM   #298
chran
Muse
 
chran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark, yo
Posts: 629
Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
If the problem is that the agreed-upon protocol wasn't followed, can't we just address that? (If there aren't more diaries available, then the protocol WAS followed, and she failed, and that's that.)
But - the protocol wasn't followed, regardless of how many diaries there are available.
chran 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 October 2007, 07:09 AM   #299
cooper1958nc
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 49
I am not getting this at all.

Has anyone conducted controlled experiments to see how accurately non paranormal people can guess the sex of an author based on language, idiom, reference, and similar? This test was based presumably on a committee having eliminated what they thought were gender references, but maybe others are more sensitive to these references than was the committee. And given that these diaries date from C XIX and earlier Sweden, the language and the idiom would not necessarily be accessible to us even in translation.

Were this group of writings tested on non paranormal claiming people who would know and understand c XIX Swedish idiom?
cooper1958nc 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 October 2007, 10:38 AM   #300
Blue Bubble
Sharper than a thorn
 
Blue Bubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Duxford, Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 4,577
Originally Posted by cooper1958nc View Post
I am not getting this at all.

[...snip...]
Er, I don't think she actually got to read the diaries. She only got to hold them.
Blue Bubble 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 October 2007, 11:00 AM   #301
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Blue Bubble View Post
Er, I don't think she actually got to read the diaries. She only got to hold them.
When I spoke with Jeff about the protocol used for the test, he said she did not hold them, and that they were covered at the time.

Mr. Ove has written back. Here is his response:

Quote:
Dear Alison,

It is true that at about that time last year she and I discussed possibilities for a new test. She declined my proposal to use handwritten letters (letters from males to males respectively from females to females) Instead she proposed that she should determine whether rings came from male or female deceased persons.

Her conditions for the latter type of test were such that a fair test could not in practice be carried out. (She required a guarantee that each ring had been carried by its owner a very high percentage of the time. How do we collect rings with guarantees that the owner had not taken it off at night? She wanted to hold the whole ring in her hand, not only put her finger on it, which means that the rings would have to be of exactly the same size and form, which is very difficult to acheive due to the difference in size distributions of rings carried by males and females. Most importantly, she said that the same ring could only be used once, which is not very credible and which makes a test very cumbersome. Unless she claims a very high success rate, 14 rings are too few for a reasonable statistic.) A major problem is that whereas I can get hopefully get hold of handwritten letters, there is no way that I can collect a large number of similar rings from dead people. If she collects the rings, and brings one relative for each ring (which she also requires), then that of course adds methodological issues to be dealt with.

If she wants to take up this again I am of course willing to discuss it with her, and so are other members of the Swedish Skeptics.

Most of the 2.5 years that she complains about were spent negotiating the protocol.

Yours / Sven Ove
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 22nd October 2007, 02:58 AM   #302
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,538
Originally Posted by chran View Post
But - the protocol wasn't followed, regardless of how many diaries there are available.
Why not? The only problem with the test was that she claimed some of the diaries were too old (although if you look at the results, she was actually more accurate with the older ones). The protocol said that recent diaries should be used as much as possible. If there really weren't any appropriate diaries available other than those used, the protocol was followed and she has no grounds for a retest. If it turns out that it would have been possible to find suitable newer diaries then she should be allowed a retest following exactly the same protocol but with that single issue addressed, preferably by simply establishing a cut-off date for the age of the diaries. There is no reason whatsoever for the JREF to agree to a new test with a different protocol.
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 22nd October 2007, 03:03 AM   #303
chran
Muse
 
chran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark, yo
Posts: 629
Ok, so the protocol had an amibguity that allowed for a loop hole. I mis-stated.

In my opinion she should be re-tested, and that is also Randi's opinion so any discussion of it here is kinda pointless.
chran 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 October 2007, 01:47 PM   #304
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Why not? The only problem with the test was that she claimed some of the diaries were too old (although if you look at the results, she was actually more accurate with the older ones). The protocol said that recent diaries should be used as much as possible. If there really weren't any appropriate diaries available other than those used, the protocol was followed and she has no grounds for a retest. If it turns out that it would have been possible to find suitable newer diaries then she should be allowed a retest following exactly the same protocol but with that single issue addressed, preferably by simply establishing a cut-off date for the age of the diaries. There is no reason whatsoever for the JREF to agree to a new test with a different protocol.
Ms. Landin was not informed in advance of the test how many of the diaries were older than she had specified.
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 4th November 2007, 09:46 PM   #305
SR_Racing
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5
I am not in this business per se', but in reading the thread(s) on this particular challenge, I think I would be embarassed by the handling of it. The apparent delay and worst of all the diary date issue. The parameters seemed straight forward, but the loser actually walked away with a documented excuse and in many peoples mind, did pretty well. (I know better), but there is no excuse for what seems to be a sloppy prelim.

Jim
SR_Racing 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 November 2007, 10:06 PM   #306
chran
Muse
 
chran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark, yo
Posts: 629
I totally agree, SR.
chran 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 8th November 2007, 06:53 AM   #307
Cinorjer
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 242
What a Mess!

I just waded through all of the posts about this mess, and if I ever need an example of how even self-described skeptics can engage in sloppy thinking, this will do.

First, I don't know the politics involved in choosing the preliminary testers, but it is glaringly obvious that the person(s) chosen are incompetent to run such a test by allowing such a sloppy and obvious loophole that is easy to fix. Then, instead of simply offering to fix that problem and redo the same test, we have them offering to completely redesign an entirely different test??? At this point, any result from anything conducted by this team should be suspect. Since they have already proven themselves incapable of designing a simple double blind test, how do we know they are capable of conducting one without allowing cheating? And we have yet to hear why and how such a screwup happened from the testers.

And for the people who tried to claim the test protocal was good enough or didn't matter or that we could just ignore the bad part, that is the exact sloppy thinking the woo woo crowd engages in and you should be ashamed of yourself. And if we are going to criticize applicants for foot dragging, then we have no excuse for allowing the team, in Randy's name, to do the same. Either the test was well designed or it wasn't. Excuses after the fact

Randy should have immediately instructed a new team to offer the exact same test with the glaring loophole clarified. Period. Now the damage has been done. This is an error for our team.

If we are indeed fighting the battle for logic and skepticism, then we need to get our act together.
__________________
Exos Integro, Sugiliato Curatio, y Feminae Amo Cicatrix
(Gladiator's Creed)
Cinorjer 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 8th November 2007, 11:52 PM   #308
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Cinorjer View Post
I just waded through all of the posts about this mess, and if I ever need an example of how even self-described skeptics can engage in sloppy thinking, this will do.

First, I don't know the politics involved in choosing the preliminary testers, but it is glaringly obvious that the person(s) chosen are incompetent to run such a test by allowing such a sloppy and obvious loophole that is easy to fix. Then, instead of simply offering to fix that problem and redo the same test, we have them offering to completely redesign an entirely different test??? At this point, any result from anything conducted by this team should be suspect. Since they have already proven themselves incapable of designing a simple double blind test, how do we know they are capable of conducting one without allowing cheating? And we have yet to hear why and how such a screwup happened from the testers.

And for the people who tried to claim the test protocal was good enough or didn't matter or that we could just ignore the bad part, that is the exact sloppy thinking the woo woo crowd engages in and you should be ashamed of yourself. And if we are going to criticize applicants for foot dragging, then we have no excuse for allowing the team, in Randy's name, to do the same. Either the test was well designed or it wasn't. Excuses after the fact

Randy should have immediately instructed a new team to offer the exact same test with the glaring loophole clarified. Period. Now the damage has been done. This is an error for our team.

If we are indeed fighting the battle for logic and skepticism, then we need to get our act together.
The protocol design was fine. The problem was obtaining the materials needed to test such a thing.

Ms. Landin can read from any object - so long as the person who owned it is deceased, and so long as it was extremely important to them.

No one wants to send their grandmother's wedding ring in for the test.

The Swedish Skeptics had to work with what was available, and something that they could agree upon and be consistent about.

This was journals.

Unfortunately, getting ahold of a deceased person's journal is very difficult. I applaud them for managing to get any at all.

However, some of the journals weren't journals, precisely. As I understand it, there was one that was a pig farmer's records and another that was a recipe book.

And the journals were not chosen from the correct time period.

As the protocol is developed for a new test, we have been brainstorming objects it would be possible to use. However, nothing comes springing to mind. It must be an object that belongs to a deceased person and was very personal to them, yet does not have any gender difference that an individual can feel with their hands.

Suggestions are welcome.
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 9th November 2007, 04:08 AM   #309
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,538
I still think this is an awful lot more fuss than is required. The protocol stated that diaries of a certain age must be used "as much as possible". There are only two possibilities:

1) There were no more diaries of an appropriate age. In this case, the protocol was followed and the faliure stands.

2) There were more diaries which could have been used. In this case, the same protocol can be used again, but following it properly this time.

This dificulty of finding acceptable items is just a big red herring. Either there is a problem finding acceptable items, in which case the protocol was followed, or there isn't a problem finding them, in which case it can't be such a problem to find them. There is no reason to need a new protocol or different items.
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 9th November 2007, 05:58 AM   #310
Cinorjer
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 242
"The protocol design was fine. The problem was obtaining the materials needed to test such a thing.

Ms. Landin can read from any object - so long as the person who owned it is deceased, and so long as it was extremely important to them."

The stated abilities have some inherent problems in designing a protocol that should have thrown a flag up, and been addressed in the written agreement. Remember, we're dealing with people who use ambiguities in language to earn a living. We need to think like lawyers instead of scientists. What, exactly, was her definition of an acceptible journal or diary? We're talking content and length and exact dates it falls between. What does she mean, exactly, by "important to them?" How do you measure that? That's a huge wiggle room. Someone who loves to cook can be more attached to a journal of recipes than a daily diary, but it took no psychic powers to predict that after failing she would find some fault in the selection of books.

No, the criteria she insists is necessary means we are not allowed the important step of letting her examine the objects with their content and agreeing beforehand that they meet her criteria.

Finding objects that (1) are identical in outward appearance in spite of gender of owner, (2) important to the owners, whatever that means, (3) important enough to family or society to catalog and save after the death of the owner? Impossible. Since it's our million bucks, make her come up with some sort of test that we can actually do.
__________________
Exos Integro, Sugiliato Curatio, y Feminae Amo Cicatrix
(Gladiator's Creed)
Cinorjer 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 9th November 2007, 09:02 AM   #311
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,380
Originally Posted by Cinorjer View Post
Since it's our million bucks, make her come up with some sort of test that we can actually do.
In the MDC rules it clearly states that:
Quote:
7. All of the applicant's expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.
How come that we often see that the JREF goes out their way make the tests on a shoestring and rarely, if ever, lets the applicant pay for anything other than his own transportation?

If ms Landin wants another test, and it will be very difficult to find the desired objects, Landin could pay for researchers to track down these objects.
__________________
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 9th November 2007, 09:10 AM   #312
petre
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
I don't suppose tissue samples would be considered likely to work? I would think a part of one's own body would imprint quite strongly, but then I'm no expert on the paranormal.
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 9th November 2007, 01:00 PM   #313
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
I still think this is an awful lot more fuss than is required. The protocol stated that diaries of a certain age must be used "as much as possible". There are only two possibilities:

1) There were no more diaries of an appropriate age. In this case, the protocol was followed and the faliure stands.

2) There were more diaries which could have been used. In this case, the same protocol can be used again, but following it properly this time.

This dificulty of finding acceptable items is just a big red herring. Either there is a problem finding acceptable items, in which case the protocol was followed, or there isn't a problem finding them, in which case it can't be such a problem to find them. There is no reason to need a new protocol or different items.
Again, the problem wasn't just 'diaries of an appropriate age', though that enters into it because Ms. Landin was not *told* about it, even though the age of the diaries had been an issue.

The protocol wasn't followed the moment something other than diaries or journals was used - and they were used. One of the targets was a recipe book, and another was a pig farmer's journal. That is not following the protocol. At that point, age is no longer the issue.

Originally Posted by Cinorjer View Post
"The protocol design was fine. The problem was obtaining the materials needed to test such a thing.

Ms. Landin can read from any object - so long as the person who owned it is deceased, and so long as it was extremely important to them."

The stated abilities have some inherent problems in designing a protocol that should have thrown a flag up, and been addressed in the written agreement. Remember, we're dealing with people who use ambiguities in language to earn a living. We need to think like lawyers instead of scientists. What, exactly, was her definition of an acceptible journal or diary? We're talking content and length and exact dates it falls between. What does she mean, exactly, by "important to them?" How do you measure that? That's a huge wiggle room. Someone who loves to cook can be more attached to a journal of recipes than a daily diary, but it took no psychic powers to predict that after failing she would find some fault in the selection of books.

No, the criteria she insists is necessary means we are not allowed the important step of letting her examine the objects with their content and agreeing beforehand that they meet her criteria.

Finding objects that (1) are identical in outward appearance in spite of gender of owner, (2) important to the owners, whatever that means, (3) important enough to family or society to catalog and save after the death of the owner? Impossible. Since it's our million bucks, make her come up with some sort of test that we can actually do.
The definition of the type of journal or diary she needs in order to read is clear from what her stated ability is. She can read the essence an individual leaves upon objects they are often in contact with (if the person is now deceased) and tell whether the owner was a male or a female.

If that makes no sense to you, the best way I've discovered to think of it is like Tom Riddle's Journal in the Harry Potter series. Tom Riddle put a piece of his soul inside his journal, and that is why it was able to maintain sentience on its own. Imagine that everyone does that with objects that are important to them, and you've understood the claim.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
In the MDC rules it clearly states that:

How come that we often see that the JREF goes out their way make the tests on a shoestring and rarely, if ever, lets the applicant pay for anything other than his own transportation?

If ms Landin wants another test, and it will be very difficult to find the desired objects, Landin could pay for researchers to track down these objects.
Because the materials should be provided by the JREF. Of course, any expenses accrued in getting them will fall to the applicant. But if Ms. Landin is able to get her own set of journals from her own researchers, then she will have time with them beforehand. And even if she doesn't, there's no way to prove she didn't. Since the test requires her to touch them, the journals would have to be absolutely identical in every single possible way if she was the one to provide them. And there's just no way of assuring that is the case.

I don't understand what you mean, simply because so far this hasn't cost anything.

Originally Posted by petre View Post
I don't suppose tissue samples would be considered likely to work? I would think a part of one's own body would imprint quite strongly, but then I'm no expert on the paranormal.
There are a couple of major problems with that. Firstly, you're suggesting that we hack off a piece of a dead person. That probably would not fly. Secondly, she has to touch them. Are you really suggesting a test wherein Ms. Landin would stand around holding a piece of a corpse's flesh?
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 9th November 2007, 02:35 PM   #314
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
As the protocol is developed for a new test, we have been brainstorming objects it would be possible to use. However, nothing comes springing to mind. It must be an object that belongs to a deceased person and was very personal to them, yet does not have any gender difference that an individual can feel with their hands.

Suggestions are welcome.
The black-and-white photo of your great-grandparents that your grandparents would have had on their mantle. Personal, individual, treasured, and---unless there's an infant in the photo---probably can't hint at the gender of the appropriate grandparent.

Bits of religious iconography are often unisex in appearance and important to their owners. Those little crucifixes, St. Christophers, and St. Judes that people wear around their necks---or maybe a rosary or a Bible. Is that "individual" enough?
ben m 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 9th November 2007, 02:42 PM   #315
petre
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
There are a couple of major problems with that. Firstly, you're suggesting that we hack off a piece of a dead person. That probably would not fly. Secondly, she has to touch them. Are you really suggesting a test wherein Ms. Landin would stand around holding a piece of a corpse's flesh?
Well, I wouldn't call it an ideal solution, just a potentially workable one. I should think human tissue samples by gender would be available through medical research channels, and one might think someone that deals with the spirits of the dead would likely have less aversion to contact with remnants of the living. I expect that she would raise objection on some ground or another certainly, but exploring even outlandish options reflects well upon the effort.
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 9th November 2007, 04:02 PM   #316
deathduck
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12
I have a good idea for a new type of test protocol which solves the problems of the last test:

1. She can communicate/feel/whatever with the deceased through important personal objects within the last 200 years or so, and tell gender.

2. If the object does not fit that criteria then she will not be able to do this.

So instead of gathering up 20+ important personal objects (which is difficult), gather up around *3* of such objects, and then throw in a bunch (20 or so) of garbage objects. Also, don't tell her how many objects are the target objects.

If she can guess which objects are the personal objects as well as the gender of all 3 objects and which objects are junk then she is the real deal!

It doesn't have to be done exactly like this, but this kind of approach would make things easier.
deathduck 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 9th November 2007, 04:04 PM   #317
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
The black-and-white photo of your great-grandparents that your grandparents would have had on their mantle. Personal, individual, treasured, and---unless there's an infant in the photo---probably can't hint at the gender of the appropriate grandparent.

Bits of religious iconography are often unisex in appearance and important to their owners. Those little crucifixes, St. Christophers, and St. Judes that people wear around their necks---or maybe a rosary or a Bible. Is that "individual" enough?
If the photograph belonged to grandparentS, then there is no particular gender associated with it. Imagine that your essence is something you have all over your hands that only oozes out when you feel a strong emotion.

Therefore, in order for something to fit for testing it would have to:

Be something the person touched often
Be something the person felt emotional around
Be something only one person touched often and felt emotional around
The person who touched it and felt emotional around it must be dead.

The problem with the religious stuff is this:

Do you know anyone who is going to give away their dead Grandma's beloved ____________ for a test?

Would you?

Now, potentially we could go to estate sales. A lot of them. And there we could pick up pretty much anything.

However, since it's an estate sale, we have no way of ensuring who actually owned the item and whether or not it really was treasured.

We're blocked at every turn.
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 9th November 2007, 04:04 PM   #318
LazyPint
Too Tired to Sleep
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
The black-and-white photo of your great-grandparents that your grandparents would have had on their mantle. Personal, individual, treasured, and---unless there's an infant in the photo---probably can't hint at the gender of the appropriate grandparent.

Bits of religious iconography are often unisex in appearance and important to their owners. Those little crucifixes, St. Christophers, and St. Judes that people wear around their necks---or maybe a rosary or a Bible. Is that "individual" enough?
Photos could work, though I thought the rings "had to have been in contact with the person most of the time", which photos obviously aren't.

As for the crucifixes, sounds like a good idea. The only thing I can think of is that people are usually buried with those things. Although tracking down 20 or so might not be that difficult.
LazyPint 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 9th November 2007, 05:07 PM   #319
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
The family photos would have a gender associated with them---my grandmother would have one photo of her parents, my grandfather would have a different photo. But I had forgotten about the personal-contact stipulation.

Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
We're blocked at every turn.
Not surprising, really. The fact that 100-year-old beloved personal items with no gender clues are rare is closely related to the fact that Landin thinks she can identify genders by handling 100-year-old beloved personal items. She's never actually tested herself.
ben m 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 9th November 2007, 05:07 PM   #320
Cinorjer
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 242
"The definition of the type of journal or diary she needs in order to read is clear from what her stated ability is. She can read the essence an individual leaves upon objects they are often in contact with (if the person is now deceased) and tell whether the owner was a male or a female."

It's clear to you, sure. It's also subjective, making it an undefined variable that turns this test into a "no lose" proposition for anyone being tested. Maybe I beat the odds and get lucky in my guesses. People do win the lottery. If not, I start arguing that some of the journals don't really meet my criteria for a variety of reasons. And gee, isn't that what happened? Why was a pig farmer's journal complained about? Common sense tells me a pig famer struggling to make a living is as emotionally invested in that journal as some girl writing about last night's dance.

But because it isn't defined in the the protocol, I can argue that what I meant by diary was someone writing their life's story every day. What, this journal has big gaps of months between entries? No wonder I missed that one. Not "important enough" to the writer.

You seem to be arguing that common sense is a good enough standard to design one of these tests around. Psychics and lawyers will eat you alive with that standard.
__________________
Exos Integro, Sugiliato Curatio, y Feminae Amo Cicatrix
(Gladiator's Creed)
Cinorjer 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 01:08 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.