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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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 dean radin , masaru emoto , mdc

Reply
Old 12th June 2010, 04:55 PM   #1
Vitor Moura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 495
Emoto and Dean Radin should win the million dollar?

In 2003, [the magician] James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.

In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the peer-reviewed Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing


Dean Radin wrote:

The double-blind paper we published in 2006 was indeed peer-reviewed, and it showed a statistically significant difference between water that was "exposed" to intention vs. identical water set aside as a control. The magnitude of the observed effect was smaller than is implied in Emoto's books, but the direction of the effect was consistent with his claim.

(...)

As far as I know Emoto hasn't received the one million dollar check. Nor have I.


http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/0...s-in-mail.html
Vitor Moura 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 12th June 2010, 05:15 PM   #2
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Yawn...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=164976
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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 12th June 2010, 05:42 PM   #3
stup_id
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 262
There are very specific guidelines for the prize to be awarded, in particular that the double bind experiment should be supervised by a mutually agreed team.

Are you really that naive that published articles (even if peer reviewed) can´t be willingfully or otherwise unbalanced?... so.. should they contact the JREF and succesfully reply the study in the proper conditions then they certainly should receive the prize

It isn't that hard... for a million dollars reward.. is it?
stup_id 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 12th June 2010, 06:00 PM   #4
Vitor Moura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by stup_id View Post
There are very specific guidelines for the prize to be awarded, in particular that the double bind experiment should be supervised by a mutually agreed team.
But Randi didn't mentioned anything about 'a mutually agreed team' in his public statement:

If he were to be blind to which words were being used to influence the water crystals, his search through the results looking for confirmation, would be inconclusive. I'll risk the JREF million-dollar prize on that statement. If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion, and I predict he'll get fuzzy results that prove nothing.

It is clear that the only condition which Randi asked for was the double-blind procedure. 'A mutually agreed team' was not asked.

Originally Posted by stup_id View Post
Are you really that naive that published articles (even if peer reviewed) can´t be willingfully or otherwise unbalanced?... so.. should they contact the JREF and succesfully reply the study in the proper conditions then they certainly should receive the prize

It isn't that hard... for a million dollars reward.. is it?
The only 'proper condition' which Randi asked for was the double blind procedure. See, Randi should be much more careful when he does this kind of statement. If Dean Radin or Emoto really want the million dollars, and Randi refuses to give it, I think Radin/Emoto's lawyer could easily win this issue in a court of justice.
Vitor Moura 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 12th June 2010, 06:06 PM   #5
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
I think Radin/Emoto's lawyer could easily win this issue in a court of justice.
I don't, theyre both so woo they'd probably hire big bird to prosecute
Marduk 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 12th June 2010, 06:11 PM   #6
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
If Dean Radin or Emoto really want the million dollars, and Randi refuses to give it, I think Radin/Emoto's lawyer could easily win this issue in a court of justice.
I think a dispute could easily be solved, if the study is as repeatable as claimed. Simply do it again with officials from the JREF present.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat 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 12th June 2010, 06:21 PM   #7
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
The only 'proper condition' which Randi asked for was the double blind procedure.
what do we have besides their say-so? There is no proof they actually did what they claim they have done.


Quote:
See, Randi should be much more careful when he does this kind of statement.
I'll heed that advice once he's forced to hand over the money. I shan't be holding my breath, though.

Quote:
If Dean Radin or Emoto really want the million dollars, and Randi refuses to give it, I think Radin/Emoto's lawyer could easily win this issue in a court of justice.
Sure. If they can proof that they carried out the experiments exactly as described and with exactly the same results as claimed.

Should be simple, too. They just have to repeat the experiment for the judges to show that it is at all possible and then provide some further evidence that they have done it before.

Of course, just applying for and going through with the MDC itself would be marginally easier, noticeably cheaper and it would carry a lot less risk on top of it.
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus 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 12th June 2010, 06:48 PM   #8
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,114
The green text hurt my eyes. Please stop using different colours, it makes you look like a loon. Quote boxes are the preferred medium for presenting quotes.
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge 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 12th June 2010, 07:21 PM   #9
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post


As far as I know Emoto hasn't received the one million dollar check. Nor have I.

OK, thanks for letting us know. I'm pretty sure you would have noticed if you had.
Olowkow 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 12th June 2010, 07:22 PM   #10
stup_id
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
But Randi didn't mentioned anything about 'a mutually agreed team' in his public statement:
He's discussing that the procedure itself (double blind experiment) was acceptable, he didn't said "the account of a double blind procedure is enough", he is not an idiot, with 1 000 000 reward you could easily get someone to publish your findings.

Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
It is clear that the only condition which Randi asked for was the double-blind procedure. 'A mutually agreed team' was not asked.
It is not asked, but is implied, how else could you be sure a proper double blind procedure was done?



Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
The only 'proper condition' which Randi asked for was the double blind procedure. See, Randi should be much more careful when he does this kind of statement. If Dean Radin or Emoto really want the million dollars, and Randi refuses to give it, I think Radin/Emoto's lawyer could easily win this issue in a court of justice.
I think Randi's statement is just fine, he's remarking that a double blind experiments with the variables implied would certainly win the prize, the procedure to win prize is clearly stated elsewhere.

You see.. you can't get a 1000 000 dollars just by arguing you done whatever paranormal feat you claim, even if you published it (even Nature has had to retract papers when frauds are revealed), you just have to apply by the prize rules, widely available, legally binding, fair and clear... or shut up and not get the prize

Also, no lawyer will take this case. For starters Randi's statement is no legally binding, and even being so he didn't said "a peer-reviewed publication of double blind studies would win the prize" that's very different to say: "the procedure would win the prize..."

Last edited by stup_id; 12th June 2010 at 07:25 PM. Reason: missplaced label
stup_id 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 12th June 2010, 10:44 PM   #11
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
As far as I know Emoto hasn't received the one million dollar check. Nor have I.
Just show us a copy of the signed contract you had with Randi which agrees to the MDC Challenge rules and stipulates the demonstration required.

No signed contract? Well, go away and cry into your beer.

Norm
fromdownunder 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 June 2010, 12:23 AM   #12
Kuko 4000
Graduate Poster
 
Kuko 4000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,586
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post

Dean Radin wrote:

As far as I know Emoto hasn't received the one million dollar check. Nor have I.


http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/0...s-in-mail.html



Ps. maybe someone could merge this with the other thread?
__________________
Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

Last edited by Kuko 4000; 13th June 2010 at 12:35 AM.
Kuko 4000 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 June 2010, 01:40 AM   #13
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 13,394
Vitor,

So far as I can tell, even if this "double-blind" experiment is accepted as valid, it doesn't meet Randi's criteria. What you guys did, so far as I can tell, is got a bunch of bottles of water, then Emoto just said, "this has been affected" and "this hasn't been affected". And he managed to get what you consider to be a statistically high success rate (although it is not clear to me how many different samples were used, which has a significant impact on interpretation of any results).

So let me present to you an example of what I believe Randi would look for as actual 'proof'; and then ask if you guys have actually done this.

Step 1: Water is put into several hundred identical bottles of water. The bottles are all supplied by an independent source, to ensure no secret marking is done; and all water comes from exactly the same source. Each bottle is labeled with a number, and nothing else.

Step 2: Various individuals -- all of whom are not part of Emoto's project, and who are not informed of the purpose of this study -- are given perhaps 20 bottles of water each, and told to express a particular emotion towards that water (hate, love, anger, happiness, etc.). An independent juror keeps track of the labeled bottles, and which emotions they were exposed to. 1/3 of the bottles of water are set aside as controls, and not exposed to any emotions.

Step 3: The water is frozen.

Step 4: Emoto is allowed to examine each bottle of water (but all bottles are handled by people who have no connection to him), in an entirely random order; but he must do it entirely alone, with nobody else there who might provide clues (and of course he is not allowed to observe or participate in any of the previous steps).

Step 5: Emoto must identify three things: 1) Has the water been exposed to emotions, or is it part of the control group? 2) If it has been exposed to emotions, were those emotions positive or negative? 3) What specific emotions were they exposed to?

RESULTS:

If Emoto fails to be statistically significant results to all three questions, his claims are demonstrated to be entirely false.

If Emoto gets statistically significant results to the first question, but not the latter two (which, so far as I can see, seems to be the question that was addressed in your "double-blind" study), it could be held as evidence that emotions have some kind of impact; but since it is impossible to distinguish positive from negative results, it still renders Emoto's claims to beneficial effects entirely pointless. Such a result would certainly raise enough questions to deserve more study (personally, I don't believe at a proper double-blind study would have any such results), but is nowhere near to deserving the million dollars.

If Emoto gets statistically significant results to the first two questions, that would be an indicator that there actually is a demonstrable difference in the properties of water exposed to positive or negative emotions, and would likely be worthy of a million dollar prize. However, from what you've told us, I don't see anything that indicates Emoto has accomplished this.

And if Emoto gets statistically significant results to all three questions, that would not only deserve a million dollars, he should get a Nobel prize for standing the world of physics on its head and revealing an entirely new principle to science.

I have strong doubts that the study provided enough scientific rigor to consider results to the first question reliable; and I've seen nothing to indicate answers to the second and third ones. Nor do I expect, if subjected to a proper double-blinded experiment, that Emoto ever will get statistically significant results to any of these questions.
__________________
Please check out my business, The Language of Culture
Wolfman 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 June 2010, 02:31 AM   #14
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Does anyone know anything about "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing?" Who were the peers who reviewed the article? Were they there to witness the actual test? I'm a little suspect anytime the word "healing" is used---especially in the title of a periodical I've never heard of. How hard would it be to self-publish a "peer reviewed" paper? It probably depends on who you think your peers are.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe 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 June 2010, 02:35 AM   #15
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Does anyone know anything about "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing?" Who were the peers who reviewed the article? Were they there to witness the actual test? I'm a little suspect anytime the word "healing" is used---especially in the title of a periodical I've never heard of. How hard would it be to self-publish a "peer reviewed" paper? It probably depends on who you think your peers are.

Ward
Quote:

EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing addresses the scientific principles behind, and applications of, evidence-based healing practices from a wide variety of sources, including conventional, alternative, and cross-cultural medicine. It is an interdisciplinary journal that explores the healing arts, consciousness, spirituality, eco-environmental issues, and basic science as all these fields relate to health

Current issue includes great things like chiropractic in children and a device to detect the "spirit and intention".
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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 June 2010, 02:41 AM   #16
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
Current issue includes great things like chiropractic in children and a device to detect the "spirit and intention".
Priceless... So it may have well been published in "Nova Magazine" then.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat 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 June 2010, 03:48 AM   #17
GrandMasterFox
Master Poster
 
GrandMasterFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,526
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
If Dean Radin or Emoto really want the million dollars, and Randi refuses to give it, I think Radin/Emoto's lawyer could easily win this issue in a court of justice.
So why the heck didn't they get it?

Oh, could it be because saying something either verbally or on a blog does not constitute a legal agreement?

And you either know that and just trying to troll or you're an idiot who truly believes that Randi is an idiot that can be easily cheated out of his money and Emoto is an idiot that doesn't bother calling a lawyer and claim his million.
GrandMasterFox 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 June 2010, 04:22 AM   #18
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,665
Vitor, do you know how peer-review works, and what it actually accomplishes if it works correctly?

Do you understand its inherent limitations?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 13th June 2010 at 04:23 AM.
Mojo is online now   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 June 2010, 04:28 AM   #19
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
If he were to be blind to which words were being used to influence the water crystals, his search through the results looking for confirmation, would be inconclusive. I'll risk the JREF million-dollar prize on that statement. If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion, and I predict he'll get fuzzy results that prove nothing.
This is the quote from here right ?
http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html
Quote:
Let's spend a moment to wonder about how such a view can be brought about. Dr. Emoto might very well believe that he's doing science. But he's not. He does no double-blind procedures, for one thing, which dooms these amateur efforts, right from the beginning. If he were to be blind to which words were being used to influence the water crystals, his search through the results looking for confirmation, would be inconclusive. I'll risk the JREF million-dollar prize on that statement. If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion, and I predict he'll get fuzzy results that prove nothing.
So first off it was not "James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study"

It was a general statement and it is followed by "If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion", now where is that agreement between Randi and Emoto, hmm?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 June 2010, 04:39 AM   #20
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,665
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
If Dean Radin or Emoto really want the million dollars, and Randi refuses to give it, I think Radin/Emoto's lawyer could easily win this issue in a court of justice.

I doubt it, because all Randi did was to invite Emoto to apply for the MDC. Here's the statement from 2003 in which Randi "publicly offered Emoto one million dollars" (I notice that you didn't actually link to it):
Quote:
I'll risk the JREF million-dollar prize on that statement. If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion, and I predict he'll get fuzzy results that prove nothing.

Ah, but he'll have to get in line behind Sylvia Browne!

So, have Emoto and Radin "got in line" and sent their application in? Did they agree a protocol with the JREF?

ETA: I see Dancing David made much the same point while I was posting that.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 13th June 2010 at 04:41 AM.
Mojo is online now   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 June 2010, 04:49 AM   #21
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,665
Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
Oh, could it be because saying something either verbally or on a blog does not constitute a legal agreement?

I don't know about the USA, but it certainly could in the UK. See Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] 2 QB 484.

It is immaterial in this case though, because the offer made is clearly not what has been claimed.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   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 June 2010, 05:02 AM   #22
Vitor Moura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
So why the heck didn't they get it?

Oh, could it be because saying something either verbally or on a blog does not constitute a legal agreement?
I don't know the law in U.S.A., but if what Randi says in his blog is not valid, he is being dishonest in doing so.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
And you either know that and just trying to troll or you're an idiot who truly believes that Randi is an idiot that can be easily cheated out of his money and Emoto is an idiot that doesn't bother calling a lawyer and claim his million.
You are so angry! There can be some reasons for a person to refuse a million dollars prize. In fact, a Russian genius refused $1 Million Prize recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMGvXeYY3xU

I don't know why Emoto or Radin don't claim their million, I will ask Radin about this.
Vitor Moura 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 June 2010, 05:09 AM   #23
Vitor Moura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
This is the quote from here right ?
http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html


So first off it was not "James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study"

It was a general statement and it is followed by "If Dr. Emoto wants to win the prize, let him agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion", now where is that agreement between Randi and Emoto, hmm?
As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.
Vitor Moura 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 June 2010, 05:23 AM   #24
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.
Then you understand it incorrectly.

An agreement has to be between two parties.
When people accept the MDC, a protocol is devised to rule out shinanigans.
In the case of a dubious study done by dubious woos and peer reviewed in a dubious publication, none of the usual safeguards have been met nor agreed upon.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat 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 June 2010, 05:31 AM   #25
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Interesting. Radin knows that what he is saying is untrue, yet he chooses to say it anyway. It has been pointed out to him already that his triple-blind study failed to replicate prior results and that his double-blind study did not reach statistical significance - statements which he agreed with - yet he pretends that these studies were positive. Why isn't he called on this by his peers?

Anyway, Randi hasn't cut them a cheque because it happened exactly as predicted...under double-blind conditions they got fuzzy results which prove nothing.

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 13th June 2010, 05:33 AM   #26
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
I don't know why Emoto or Radin don't claim their million, I will ask Radin about this.
Because Randi didn't say that he would award the prize for fuzzy results which prove nothing. And Radin must realize this, otherwise why take the fight to the blogosphere where your audience consists of those who won't know better?

Linda

Last edited by fls; 13th June 2010 at 05:35 AM.
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 13th June 2010, 05:44 AM   #27
Vitor Moura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
Then you understand it incorrectly.

An agreement has to be between two parties.
Sure. I never questioned that, this is very obvious. What I questioned is that Randi in any moment said that the second party should be him. In fact, Randi already said:

So, it wouldn’t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials.

http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=7

Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
When people accept the MDC, a protocol is devised to rule out shinanigans.
In the case of a dubious study done by dubious woos and peer reviewed in a dubious publication, none of the usual safeguards have been met nor agreed upon.
The problem is that Randi didn't mentioned these safeguards in his blog. The only rule that Randi mentioned is that the study should be double blind.
Vitor Moura 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 June 2010, 05:47 AM   #28
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Yawn...has Victor gotten to any point yet?
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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 June 2010, 05:50 AM   #29
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
I don't know the law in U.S.A., but if what Randi says in his blog is not valid, he is being dishonest in doing so.



You are so angry! There can be some reasons for a person to refuse a million dollars prize. In fact, a Russian genius refused $1 Million Prize recently.

.
Not anger - just trouble believing how far idiots will go on this kind of silliness. Emoto and the other slime (and Browne and the Russian) won't apply and do a legitimate test because they can go on and on and on defrauding people/tricking people/bilking people while claiming Randi is a fraud, or the million isn't really there or any other silliness they can get their victims to believe. Take the test and be proved to be frauds? Never happen.

Interestingly, the refusal to apply and test, for intelligent people, is prima facie evidence of an inability to do what is claimed.
fuelair 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 June 2010, 05:56 AM   #30
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,114
If these guys can do what they claim, what's the problem in doing it again for the JREF?
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge 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 June 2010, 05:58 AM   #31
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.
You are free to understand/misunderstand anything you wish. That does not have the force of contract or law. But, take a no-prize and thanks for playing (my friendly way of saying, where's Emoto's lawyer? I know, you should) !!!
fuelair 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 June 2010, 06:01 AM   #32
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
Sure. I never questioned that, this is very obvious. What I questioned is that Randi in any moment said that the second party should be him. In fact, Randi already said:

So, it wouldn’t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials.
Well there you go then... Who was the scientist with "the proper credentials" that supervised the test?

Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
The problem is that Randi didn't mentioned these safeguards in his blog. The only rule that Randi mentioned is that the study should be double blind.
There is no need to write everything out in long hand every time it is mentioned. The rules and procedures for the MDC are already well publicised.

This is just people whinging and wanting to make something out of nothing in the absence of any evidence to back up their ridiculous claims.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat 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 June 2010, 06:07 AM   #33
Vitor Moura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by fls View Post
Interesting. Radin knows that what he is saying is untrue, yet he chooses to say it anyway. It has been pointed out to him already that his triple-blind study failed to replicate prior results
This is not true. This is what is said in the article:

Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

Source: http://www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf

Originally Posted by fls View Post
and that his double-blind study did not reach statistical significance -
This is not true (again). The double blind study did reach statistical significance.

Comparison of the mean ratings assigned to the images showed that the crystals from the treated water were rated significantly higher for aesthetic appeal than the crystals from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Source: DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION

Originally Posted by fls View Post
statements which he agreed with - yet he pretends that these studies were positive. Why isn't he called on this by his peers?
Again, this is not true. He didn't agree that the results were NOT significant. He said in his blog that the results WERE significant, but weak.

I should emphasize here that all of these effects were small in magnitude and the statistical effects, while significant, were weak. So while this replication provided some support for the hypothesis, I'd say it is intriguing but not overwhelming.
Vitor Moura 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 June 2010, 06:23 AM   #34
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
Sure. I never questioned that, this is very obvious. What I questioned is that Randi in any moment said that the second party should be him. In fact, Randi already said:

So, it wouldn’t be me doing the test. It would be someone like Chris French or Wiseman, or some other scientist with the proper credentials.

http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=7

Sigh. The *agreement* on terms must be between the claimant and Randi.

The test may be performed by a third party, agreeable to Randi. Agreeable . . . follow me here . . . as determined by the *agreement* between the claimant and Randi. Which never occurred.

As far as I am concerned, it's put up or shut up time for the claimant. If he's so confident he's tricked his way to the million dollars, then let him go get laughed out of court sue and prove it.
NoZed Avenger 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 June 2010, 06:26 AM   #35
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox View Post
So why the heck didn't they get it?

Oh, could it be because saying something either verbally or on a blog does not constitute a legal agreement?
.
yes it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract
However, as the second party didn't expressly agree to the terms when delivered there is no contract

so whining about something wether correct or not several years after the offer is irrelevant. This is why I stated earlier that they would have to get Big Bird to prosecute, because no other lawyer would take the case. There is simply no case to answer. This also shows the level of legal advice that the woos have sought i.e. none because apparently they don't know that and of course how seriously everyone should take their claim as they didn't bother to find out

Last edited by Marduk; 13th June 2010 at 07:05 AM.
Marduk 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 June 2010, 06:47 AM   #36
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
This is not true. This is what is said in the article:

Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

Source: http://www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf
The earlier test did not use proximal control crystals, but rather distant control crystals. As Radin states in the comments section in the blog referenced earlier, "...the average aesthetic rating for the distant controls was about the same as the "treated" crystals..."

Quote:
This is not true (again). The double blind study did reach statistical significance.

Comparison of the mean ratings assigned to the images showed that the crystals from the treated water were rated significantly higher for aesthetic appeal than the crystals from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Source: DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION
You're right. This study suffered from analysis issues, but it was the analysis issues on the triple-blind study which Radin agreed to. The main problem with the double-blind study was simply that the water was treated differently which would easily account for the differences observed.

Quote:
Again, this is not true. He didn't agree that the results were NOT significant. He said in his blog that the results WERE significant, but weak.

I should emphasize here that all of these effects were small in magnitude and the statistical effects, while significant, were weak. So while this replication provided some support for the hypothesis, I'd say it is intriguing but not overwhelming.
In a comment which Radin must have read, because he responded to it, it is stated:

"The scientific community is also used to using more rigorous standards with respect to significance testing - using two-tailed tests and making corrections when testing multiple comparisons. Exposing this study to either of those standards (let alone both) would leave the results non-significant."

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 13th June 2010, 07:15 AM   #37
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
As I understand, it is not said that this agreement should be only between Emoto and Randi. So, he - Emoto - could agree to perform his tests in a double-blind fashion with any scientist. That's what he did with Radin.
That is really stretching, where does Randi say 'any double-blinded' test?

You have added something that is totally not in the statement, but for the million dollars that Randi holds it would be implicit that the agreement is between Randi and Emoto.


Much less that Randi would agree with the term 'double blinding'.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 13th June 2010 at 07:19 AM.
Dancing David 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 June 2010, 08:52 AM   #38
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Vic , are you the guy who asks for the free smile when you go into mcdonalds?

Did you think red bull really made you sprout wings from your back?

Do you think Jones soda really makes soda using brain juice from illithids?

Do you expect gobstoppers to truly be everlasting?

If not then use the same reasoning you used when making the decision on these products. The mdc rules are clearly stated on the website and cherry picking a couple of sentences from james does not suddenly negate those clearly written rules. Use a touch of common sense when making judgments like these and your life will be a lot less frustrating.
sadhatter 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 June 2010, 10:17 AM   #39
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Vitor Moura View Post
This is not true. This is what is said in the article:

Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.

Source: http://www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf



This is not true (again). The double blind study did reach statistical significance.

Comparison of the mean ratings assigned to the images showed that the crystals from the treated water were rated significantly higher for aesthetic appeal than the crystals from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Source: DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION



Again, this is not true. He didn't agree that the results were NOT significant. He said in his blog that the results WERE significant, but weak.

I should emphasize here that all of these effects were small in magnitude and the statistical effects, while significant, were weak. So while this replication provided some support for the hypothesis, I'd say it is intriguing but not overwhelming.
So some crystals were prettier than others and so Randi owes you a million?
tsig 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 14th June 2010, 07:48 AM   #40
Theophage
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 116
Published in the peer-reviewed journal "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing", is it?

Looking at their website, Dean Radin, PhD is one of the co-editors in chief. Gee, I wonder how that article got published...
Theophage 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 » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

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 06:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.