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 pavel ziborov

Reply
Old 13th January 2009, 01:58 AM   #201
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Why is Pavel not allowed to bring observers?

@Sparhawk: In all of the protocols I have read in the MDC section the results were revealed after the entire test had been completed. I simply hope the JREF has very good reasons to abandon a well-working procedure. I brought this up before in the other thread.
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 13th January 2009, 02:41 AM   #202
RemieV
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,292
Because this will more than likely take place in a room more like a classroom than a lab. The observers would be *in* the testing room, and that is simply too many people who might either intentionally or unintentionally interfere with the testing.

Pavel specifically stated that he needs the envelopes to be opened as soon as he announces his response. That is why it is in the protocol as such.
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 13th January 2009, 03:53 AM   #203
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
[quote=GzuzKryzt;4342812]Why is Pavel not allowed to bring observers?QUOTE]

Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
Because this will more than likely take place in a room more like a classroom than a lab. The observers would be *in* the testing room, and that is simply too many people who might either intentionally or unintentionally interfere with the testing.

Pavel specifically stated that he needs the envelopes to be opened as soon as he announces his response. That is why it is in the protocol as such.

To be honest I cant understand it.. is that to make me more stressed by being in environment where I am alone and surrounded by only JREF members and volunteers?? That creates extra stress for me to be honest.. plus Only JREF allowed video taping, meaning what ever happened there its all in the hands of JREF. NO whiteness. I am not saying it to avoid testing I am just saying it cause that the way I feel, the test in the small lab, I am not finding good reason, why don't we do in in a bigger one? Just finding it weird and purposively complicating.. Can at least some one be there “for me”?? if its not some one who I know very well, can it be at least Startz who helps negotiate protocol? I will pay his tickets if I will be able to and if he will be able to attend it. I am human being and even simply psychology works on me, when you suppressed by all conditions and even cant have even 1 person in room who will be on “your side” that really not helping to be calm. Nevertheless again.. I am not sayng it to avoid testing.

YES I want envelopes to be open immediately, just that I don't want results board to be on my eye sight.
pavel_do 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 13th January 2009, 04:20 AM   #204
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
Because this will more than likely take place in a room more like a classroom than a lab. The observers would be *in* the testing room, and that is simply too many people who might either intentionally or unintentionally interfere with the testing.
I assumed you might say that.

However, Pavel should be allowed to have observer/s of his chosing in the immediate testing area to allow for control of the process.
I would consider that an important accomodation, because it would not create - in Pavel's words: extra stress.

Both sides should focus on optimal test conditions to ensure an optimal result.

Originally Posted by RemieV View Post
Pavel specifically stated that he needs the envelopes to be opened as soon as he announces his response. That is why it is in the protocol as such.
That would be one step towards optimal test conditions.
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 13th January 2009, 04:24 AM   #205
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
...
YES I want envelopes to be open immediately, just that I don't want results board to be on my eye sight.
Why would you want the envelopes to be opened immediately if you can not see the results board?
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 13th January 2009, 05:11 AM   #206
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Why would you want the envelopes to be opened immediately if you can not see the results board?

Well I want it to be open immediate as I have stated from day one cause when I hold envelope I am trying foresee what will I see when it will be revealed, so I need to see actual picture.. not YES or NO answer.... and I don't want see result board, cause I don't want to be destructed as my brain will be counting Hits and Misses, plus lines, squears etc.. So I prefer not too..
pavel_do 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 13th January 2009, 07:26 AM   #207
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
Well I want it to be open immediate as I have stated from day one cause when I hold envelope I am trying foresee what will I see when it will be revealed, so I need to see actual picture.. not YES or NO answer.... and I don't want see result board, cause I don't want to be destructed as my brain will be counting Hits and Misses, plus lines, squears etc.. So I prefer not too..
I see.

Have you done trial runs with this exact test set-up?
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 13th January 2009, 08:26 AM   #208
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
I see.

Have you done trial runs with this exact test set-up?

I have done trials with pairs obviously, but not the exact way it was proposed by JREF.. cause they changed it a bit and take different set up, but any way..my “job” is to see what the photo is.. and how its all passed to me with what names and stuff that is different story..
pavel_do 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 13th January 2009, 09:21 AM   #209
Crundy
Critical Thinker
 
Crundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 475
Can the room not contain the tester, Pavel, a JREF cameraman, and Pavel's cameraman? 4 shouldn't be too many for one room.
__________________
"You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!" - Chiropractor
Crundy 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 13th January 2009, 12:53 PM   #210
Roma
Master Poster
 
Roma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,073
RemieV, I read that if Pavel gets 67% correct it will be considered a win. Isn't that pretty low?
Roma 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 13th January 2009, 01:29 PM   #211
Startz
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by Roma Hart View Post
RemieV, I read that if Pavel gets 67% correct it will be considered a win. Isn't that pretty low?
My calculation is that the probability of winning by chance is 0.00043686, roughly 1 chance in 2,000.

This will, of course, be checked by a JREF consultant, as RemieV mentioned in her posting in the challenge section
Startz 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 13th January 2009, 01:56 PM   #212
Roma
Master Poster
 
Roma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,073
Thanks Startz, I learn something new everyday.
Roma 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 15th January 2009, 09:49 AM   #213
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg
Folks, I'm going to step in here.

This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.

RemieV recently went over a protocol with me that looked like it might be workable, and then I see here that ANOTHER one has been proposed and Pavel likes it. Now we're essentially back to square one.

It is now incumbent upon Pavel, who I admit seems sincere, to state what he can do and allow us to test it. It seems that he applied way before he was ready, and now the JREF is expending too many resources to try to make something work.

There are other applicants waiting.

The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

SO TRANSPARENT!!!!!

Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim.
Edited by Darat:  Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.


Mod WarningDiscussing Moderation issues in threads outside the Forum Management section is not allowed, if you do this again your entire post will be removed.
Posted By:Darat

Last edited by Darat; 16th January 2009 at 01:35 AM.
The Professor 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 15th January 2009, 10:07 AM   #214
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,563
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim.
Edited by Darat:  Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.
Please explain why the JREF needs to go through all this trouble with applicants who seem incapable of stating a clear claim? They have been very obliging with Pavel because he seems sincere (compared to certain others, which will be off-topic to discuss here), but why should they do endless negotiations with him?

You can hardly call it "pulling a fast one", when you note for how long these negotiations have been going on. It is only reasonable that they draw a line.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!

Last edited by Darat; 16th January 2009 at 01:36 AM.
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 15th January 2009, 10:11 AM   #215
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg
....
__________________________________________________ ___________________

SO TRANSPARENT!!!!!

Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim.
Edited by Darat:  Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.
Talk about quote mining.

That was posted on 27th August 2008, 11:54 PM.

Unlike you, Pavel was always genuinely committed to participating in the Challenge and as such received a great deal of support from Forum members in helping iron out a protocol that suited his claim and suited him.

The latest post, 2 days ago, from RemieV demonstrates both the willingness and the honesty of both parties in concluding Pavel's Challenge application.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Last edited by Darat; 16th January 2009 at 01:36 AM.
EHocking 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 15th January 2009, 10:51 AM   #216
Startz
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
>snip_____________________________________________ ________________________

SO TRANSPARENT!!!!!

Seems like Jeff LIKES to pull a fast one on the Applicants in this manner. It's obviously not fair! Seems like this guy is trying, but now Jeff Wagg threatens to kick him off just like he did with my Claim.
Edited by Darat:  Off topic comments regarding moderation removed.
This is just offensive. JREF is actively engaged in negotiations with Pavel, with some intermediary work on my part. This is a matter of public record. We have sometimes had several email exchanges on a single day. While the protocol is probably messier than anyone wants, I expect that the evident good will on both sides will result in a test agreement in the near future.

Last edited by Darat; 16th January 2009 at 01:36 AM.
Startz 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 15th January 2009, 03:02 PM   #217
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Won't happen! The JREF with the help of the rest of you will destroy this before you ever have to risk the Million. You ALWAYS DO
Why the THREAT from WAGG? He loves throwing his weight around saying ..."This is your Last Chance" ... It's just obvious.
You are right !!!!!... This guy is really trying yet he has to deal with these threats.
I feel his pain
The Professor 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 15th January 2009, 03:52 PM   #218
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Won't happen! The JREF with the help of the rest of you will destroy this before you ever have to risk the Million. You ALWAYS DO
Wrong.

As evidenced by the people who HAVE been tested for the MDC.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking 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 15th January 2009, 05:00 PM   #219
Jeff Wagg
Illuminator
 
Jeff Wagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,098
Pavel and The Professor have nothing in common. Pavel is trying to work out something, but having trouble (which seems to be fixed.) The Professor never tried.
Jeff Wagg 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 15th January 2009, 07:28 PM   #220
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg View Post
Pavel and The Professor have nothing in common. Pavel is trying to work out something, but having trouble (which seems to be fixed.) The Professor never tried.
I disagree! I still want to take the challenge. I think that you are making Pavel jump through hoops that he doesn't need to. He is honestly trying.
He has filled out the application and notorized it. That takes a lot of work.
He sent it in.
He got a Media Presence somewhere. Not that easy.
Then he got someone to be an Academic and write something good for him.
That takes effort too.
Then he worked out an acceptable a Claim. That takes some doing.
He's tried to work with those on the Forum. Remarkable.
Now the Protocol .... Is that where this is now?
All of this seems to take a lot of time and effort.
Good Job Pavel !!!!!!!!
We do have a lot in common.
I commend you.
The Professor 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 January 2009, 01:42 AM   #221
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,056
Mod WarningPlease keep to the topic of this thread which is the protocol for Pavel Ziborov. If you wish to discuss other protocols, applications and so on do so elsewhere.
Posted By:Darat
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 January 2009, 03:08 PM   #222
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
I am here to encourage you Pavel!
Keep at it. Time is running out but I have faith in you.
I will help you in any way!
Stick to your guns
The Professor 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 2009, 04:07 PM   #223
Crundy
Critical Thinker
 
Crundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by Crundy View Post
Can the room not contain the tester, Pavel, a JREF cameraman, and Pavel's cameraman? 4 shouldn't be too many for one room.
No-one answered this. So don't you think this would be sufficient?
__________________
"You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!" - Chiropractor
Crundy 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 February 2009, 02:23 PM   #224
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
How Cool! Happy birthday to me! JREF must tell you that is something cool! Note with Happy birthday!
xxx
pavel_do 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 February 2009, 08:18 AM   #225
Moochie
Philosopher
 
Moochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,491
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
How Cool! Happy birthday to me! JREF must tell you that is something cool! Note with Happy birthday!
xxx

Is it your birthday? If so, Happy Birthday!


M.
Moochie 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 February 2009, 09:02 AM   #226
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,802
Sorry I missed your birthday, Pavel. Happy birthday yesterday and good luck with the challenge!
RoboTimbo 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 February 2009, 09:33 AM   #227
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Happy birthday and all the best on your next trip around the sun, Pavel.
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 August 2009, 01:27 PM   #228
pavel_do
Critical Thinker
 
pavel_do's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 363
Dear forum members,

I would like to thank you all for your time, help and patience during the negotiation of my protocol with JREF. Thank you for your support, critique and ideas. I have learned a lot, some of the suggestions helped me to improve the protocol and move on with negotiations.
This morning I received the next email from JREF.

Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”


I am speechless, to be honest. After dragging it for over a year and deliberately pushing me to accept THEIR conditions that would complicate the test and make it impossible for me to pass, JREF just want make it my fault and close file. I am given a “great” choice—my file will be closed or I have to agree with the protocol that guarantees my failure! JREF has dragged me with my protocol for so long, I had to wait MONTHS sometimes for their reply and seemed like they were sort of happy with it. And the problem was a bottle of water and the presence of someone from my side. Then I answered all there question, reviewed the protocol with the help of Startz and accepted some of JREF’s suggestions and objections, waited for the reply and opinion and what’s happened? After exactly four months I’ve received a reply which completely ignores all previous negotiations with NO answers to my questions. JREF asked me to send the latest protocol. OK. I was a bit confused but OK, did it, sent it! And here we go, after months of waiting—GET IT PAVEL! Now its as simple as: you fail or you fail!

I never from the very first day, NEVER claimed 100% accuracy and it was the JREF who asked me to state my accuracy. I did it, as you all know, totally transparent from my side and posted on forum. The JREF accepted my claims and after some months we started negotiating and we arrived where we arrived.

In the view of over a year of my "STRUGGLE" corresponding with JREF—one letter in a few months— and their deliberate push, as I said before, to the conditions that would guarantee JREF that I will fail.

There last threat to close my file if I don't agree to correctly identify 20 and I am not given even 1 chance to be wrong, they know I will not agree to this. They perfectly know it. Again, I never claimed 100% accuracy and even if supposedly we negotiated, say, 18 out of 20 that, first of all, more than my accuracy claimed and, second of all, I am not given chance anyway, Starz has offered me to write to JREF and ask for possible negotiation. Very kind of him but what negotiation are we talking about when… “What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility? If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.”

I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.

Nevertheless, I want to thank everybody here on this forum again.
My challenge is over! I leave JREF to their business that is to ridicule applicants and than to shout everywhere that they are the fairest challenge ever.
Now my file will be closed.
And, unfortunately, the words of Sally Feather, daughter of the founder of Rhine’s parapsychology center, finally came true: “You will discover you are wasting your time, but it will be good to find out for yourself rather than just take others word for it.”

She was absolutely right. I guess she should get 1.000.000$ for prediction coming through!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

P.S.

My reply to JREF as follows..

Dear Alison,

From my side I have done more than enough to prove my willingness to be tested. And I think it is a normal wish to be tested fairly. I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure. I have nothing more to say but to close my file as I see no more point in negotiations with JREF.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel
pavel_do 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 August 2009, 01:52 PM   #229
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
...
I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.
...
Pavel, while you were one of the more courteous applicants, you did do a lot of waffling, which is usually the sign of someone not wanting to get tested.

We can never be sure whether it was due to a language barrier. I think you are quite intelligent, and I think you made calculated moves.

All in all, your walk in JREF territory was not a straight line, which can easily be seen from your posts.

If I were you - that is: serious about providing evidence for my claim under controlled conditions - I'd take up another challenge and do a test where possible. The JREF is obviously not the only girl at this dance.
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 August 2009, 02:40 PM   #230
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,565
I agree with GzuzKryzt. Find other organizations that are willing to test you. Try the local universities. Try the media. You need to have something very simple to show. Once you can demonstrate the simple then you can do the more complex things. Doing the MDC is a hard task. No one has come close to winning the prize.
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 21st August 2009, 04:41 AM   #231
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
Dear forum members,

...Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”
pavel,

Since you are being asked to simplify the protocol you sent to JREF (June?) and the latest protocol on the MDC thread was in February, could you list the protocol in this thread to enable sincere posters to help you refine it to meet JREF's suggestion? If you prefer, you could PM the protocol to me.

It would seem a shame to have come all this way only to fall at the last fence.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking 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 August 2009, 07:22 AM   #232
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,019
Pavel, they didn't say you had to get all 20 correct to pass. Someone help me out here, wouldn't the number be more like 17? I don't see how this protocol guarantees your failure.
Marcus 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 August 2009, 07:46 AM   #233
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Pavel, they didn't say you had to get all 20 correct to pass. Someone help me out here, wouldn't the number be more like 17? I don't see how this protocol guarantees your failure.
The number would be 16 or more correct out of 20 fifty-fifty chances.

However, we cannot be sure to which protocol proposal Pavel and the JREF referred, since there were quite a few tossed around.
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 August 2009, 09:53 AM   #234
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
The number would be 16 or more correct out of 20 fifty-fifty chances.

However, we cannot be sure to which protocol proposal Pavel and the JREF referred, since there were quite a few tossed around.
According to Pavel, Randi said:

"Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

"I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested."

All that Randi had to add is something like: "Of course, he doesn't have to get all 20 right. 16 would be acceptable, at least for the preliminary test."

So, will Randi make such a clarification?
Rodney 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 August 2009, 11:44 AM   #235
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
Dear forum members,

I would like to thank you all for your time, help and patience during the negotiation of my protocol with JREF. Thank you for your support, critique and ideas. I have learned a lot, some of the suggestions helped me to improve the protocol and move on with negotiations.
This morning I received the next email from JREF.

Here is the latest letter from Alison:

“Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation”


I am speechless, to be honest. After dragging it for over a year and deliberately pushing me to accept THEIR conditions that would complicate the test and make it impossible for me to pass, JREF just want make it my fault and close file. I am given a “great” choice—my file will be closed or I have to agree with the protocol that guarantees my failure! JREF has dragged me with my protocol for so long, I had to wait MONTHS sometimes for their reply and seemed like they were sort of happy with it. And the problem was a bottle of water and the presence of someone from my side. Then I answered all there question, reviewed the protocol with the help of Startz and accepted some of JREF’s suggestions and objections, waited for the reply and opinion and what’s happened? After exactly four months I’ve received a reply which completely ignores all previous negotiations with NO answers to my questions. JREF asked me to send the latest protocol. OK. I was a bit confused but OK, did it, sent it! And here we go, after months of waiting—GET IT PAVEL! Now its as simple as: you fail or you fail!
I agree with you. The response seems quite unfair. I followed your application process, but it's been so long that I have forgotten some of the details. However, I just re-read the last protocol you submitted to Alison and I don't understand why they suddenly felt it was too onerous (or why they made a fuss over something as simple as some water). If eight hours is now too long for a Challenge test, then it means that many claims will be dismissed on a technicality, rather than on merit, which makes the presence of the Challenge even less useful.

Quote:
I never from the very first day, NEVER claimed 100% accuracy and it was the JREF who asked me to state my accuracy. I did it, as you all know, totally transparent from my side and posted on forum. The JREF accepted my claims and after some months we started negotiating and we arrived where we arrived.
I think you have misunderstood (or at least, I hope you have). Your success rate will probably be expected to correspond to the same probability given for success in the other test. However, you are right to be concerned. Reducing the number of tests means that you need a much higher success rate to reach the same level of probability. And this success rate will be higher than the success rate you have actually claimed (through your own testing). It sets you up to fail even if your claim is true and accurate. Which would make the critics of James Randi and the Challenge right. This is very disappointing.

Quote:
In the view of over a year of my "STRUGGLE" corresponding with JREF—one letter in a few months— and their deliberate push, as I said before, to the conditions that would guarantee JREF that I will fail.

There last threat to close my file if I don't agree to correctly identify 20 and I am not given even 1 chance to be wrong, they know I will not agree to this. They perfectly know it. Again, I never claimed 100% accuracy and even if supposedly we negotiated, say, 18 out of 20 that, first of all, more than my accuracy claimed and, second of all, I am not given chance anyway, Starz has offered me to write to JREF and ask for possible negotiation. Very kind of him but what negotiation are we talking about when… “What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility? If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.”

I think there is enough said. From day one I always did my best to move the protocol, always carefully answered all the questions and suggestion.

Nevertheless, I want to thank everybody here on this forum again.
My challenge is over! I leave JREF to their business that is to ridicule applicants and than to shout everywhere that they are the fairest challenge ever.
Now my file will be closed.
And, unfortunately, the words of Sally Feather, daughter of the founder of Rhine’s parapsychology center, finally came true: “You will discover you are wasting your time, but it will be good to find out for yourself rather than just take others word for it.”

She was absolutely right. I guess she should get 1.000.000$ for prediction coming through!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel

P.S.

My reply to JREF as follows..

Dear Alison,

From my side I have done more than enough to prove my willingness to be tested. And I think it is a normal wish to be tested fairly. I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure. I have nothing more to say but to close my file as I see no more point in negotiations with JREF.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel
Before you consider the matter closed, is it possible for you and Starz to review the protocol again and attempt a response? Otherwise, I'd do as others suggested and simply look elsewhere.

Linda
fls 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 August 2009, 12:48 PM   #236
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
According to Pavel, Randi said:

"Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

"I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested."

All that Randi had to add is something like: "Of course, he doesn't have to get all 20 right. 16 would be acceptable, at least for the preliminary test."

So, will Randi make such a clarification?
Before we play chinese whispers or delve into a he said, she said bonanza, let's await an official JREF response. Or, if one can't wait that long, ask challenge@randi.org
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 August 2009, 09:22 PM   #237
Gr8wight
red-shirted crewman
 
Gr8wight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by pavel_do View Post
I do not agree with the protocol that from the beginning guarantees my failure.

Pavel
Pavel,

Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.
__________________
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 21st August 2009, 11:57 PM   #238
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,947
Originally Posted by Gr8wight View Post
Why does Randi's stated protocol guarantee your failure? I don't understand. Are you saying you cannot identify pictures inside envelopes? I thought that was a key platform in your claim. Please explain.
AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.
Pixel42 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 August 2009, 01:27 AM   #239
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
AIUI he's never claimed 100% accuracy, only better than the 50% accuracy expected by chance. So if he has to correctly identify every one of the 20 photographs to pass the test he already knows he won't be able to do so.

But as has been pointed out, to reach the 1:1000 odds usually required to pass the preliminary test he wouldn't need to identify all 20. So there appears to have some miscommunication.
Let me remind everyone that Pavel wanted to use 200 photographs (or copies) in the last available protocol. If I remember correctly, at one point he wanted to use even more.

That is not a streamlined test. I'm sure we can agree on that.

Given Randi's penchant for simple test set-ups, he seems to have recently insisted on 20 trials, after a simple test did not materialize in the months and months before.

I also doubt very much that Randi insisted on Pavel nailing all 20 of those 20 trials. That's why I'd like to see a JREF statement.
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 August 2009, 02:29 AM   #240
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,947
Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt View Post
Let me remind everyone that Pavel wanted to use 200 photographs (or copies) in the last available protocol. If I remember correctly, at one point he wanted to use even more.

That is not a streamlined test. I'm sure we can agree on that.
Absolutely.

Quote:
Given Randi's penchant for simple test set-ups, he seems to have recently insisted on 20 trials, after a simple test did not materialize in the months and months before.
Which should be ample for a preliminary test.

Quote:
I also doubt very much that Randi insisted on Pavel nailing all 20 of those 20 trials. That's why I'd like to see a JREF statement.
Likewise. I can see nothing in the correspondence he quoted that says he'd have to get all 20 right. Pavel seems to have simply assumed it.
Pixel42 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 02:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.