Randi did what?

[GIThruster]

Count me surprised at what Randi did here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

[Stubby]

The video is 90 minutes from 2008. What did he do?

I searched the JREF forums and there are not very many nice things to be said about Shelldrake.

I also found this:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... uffle.html

[GIThruster]

Pick it up at 49 minutes in and listen for 3 minutes. I was shocked and now wonder about Randi's credibility.

[JoeP]

PSI powers? Umm... (Skeptic meter peaking...)
And whatever Randi supposedly said/did regarding replicating this guy's experiments with dogs -- we only have this fringe scientist's half of it. I'll give Randi the benefit here.

Is this Sheldrake guy associated with Brian Josephson at all? Sounds like the same kind of stuff.

[JoeP]

The video is 90 minutes from 2008. What did he do?

I searched the JREF forums and there are not very many nice things to be said about Shelldrake.

I also found this:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... uffle.html

Ah, good find. Randi explains everything there.

[Stubby]

JREF is a great forum for skeptics

[GIThruster]

I was a Randi fan until this. Now I would never trust the guy again. This link you've posted just compounds the trouble by doubling down on the lies.

I would note to you too, that Joe above is doing just what Randi is doing, making up his mind without looking at the evidence. And I agree that such a thing is a good example of scientific bigotry. There is far too much evidence that various psi type effects exist, to treat with them in this off-handed manner. Just in the Stargate program alone, there is so much evidence, that it overwhelms. This is not to say that these are useful resources. Stargate was closed specifically because the nature of the resource makes it untrustworthy/unusable. However there can be no doubt for anyone who looks at the evidence that these oddball effects exist, and Randi is just wrong here to make up his mind without looking at the evidence.

[Skipjack]

I was a Randi fan until this. Now I would never trust the guy again. This link you've posted just compounds the trouble by doubling down on the lies.

I would note to you too, that Joe above is doing just what Randi is doing, making up his mind without looking at the evidence. And I agree that such a thing is a good example of scientific bigotry. There is far too much evidence that various psi type effects exist, to treat with them in this off-handed manner. Just in the Stargate program alone, there is so much evidence, that it overwhelms. This is not to say that these are useful resources. Stargate was closed specifically because the nature of the resource makes it untrustworthy/unusable. However there can be no doubt for anyone who looks at the evidence that these oddball effects exist, and Randi is just wrong here to make up his mind without looking at the evidence.

I have not watched the video and don't have time to. Can anyone tell me what exactly Randi allegedly did that is getting GiThruster to worked up? Big Randi fan here.

[ladajo]

nothing. It is vapor.

[GIThruster]

It's obviously a statistically important effect. Anyone who looks at the results will find this.

This is the same hesitance that Dean Radin and the PEAR lab have faced for decades. Despite hundreds of thousands of data points, that demonstrate these things unequivocally, people pretend such studies have not been done and have not clearly demonstrated what they have. What you need to understand is that with so much data, and no hint of undue influence, the science is pretty straight forward. Just because it tells you something that surprises, or upsets your world view, makes it no less science.

[ladajo]

I was a Randi fan until this. Now I would never trust the guy again. This link you've posted just compounds the trouble by doubling down on the lies.

I would note to you too, that Joe above is doing just what Randi is doing, making up his mind without looking at the evidence. And I agree that such a thing is a good example of scientific bigotry. There is far too much evidence that various psi type effects exist, to treat with them in this off-handed manner. Just in the Stargate program alone, there is so much evidence, that it overwhelms. This is not to say that these are useful resources. Stargate was closed specifically because the nature of the resource makes it untrustworthy/unusable. However there can be no doubt for anyone who looks at the evidence that these oddball effects exist, and Randi is just wrong here to make up his mind without looking at the evidence.

I watched and listened to the google talk relevant section. He is saying Randi said/did things that Randi says he did not. It would appear that Sheldrake has taken parts of the "Dog World" article out of context. But not having the article I can not be certain.

GIT, do you have or have you read the "Dog World" article in question?

Randi says he asked for the entire video to be addressed by Sheldrake. Sheldrake has refused and says he doesn't have it now. Sheldrake also says Randi doesn't have it. Randi says he never had it.

From the link...

In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, 'We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail.' No details were given of these tests."

And then Randi says:

Clever. This implies that I was referring to the specific tests that Sheldrake claimed to have done. I was referring to general tests that the JREF has done over many years involving animals, particularly dogs.

And further from Randi:

Sheldrake continued:

"Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: 'Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.' This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."

Not true. A colleague of mine in Europe told me that he'd seen the tape record, and that he and his colleagues presented a version of it to some students who were asked to record each time the dog was activated. The dog never stopped, reacting to passers-by in the street, cars, any unusual noise and any sort of distraction. The only portion of tape that I was able to see was the section that Sheldrake saw fit to publish, the limited sector that indicated -- to his selective gaze -- the point he wanted to prove. Dr. Sheldrake, may we see the entire video record, so that we may repeat that student evaluation with persons who are, in your view, qualified to see it? I promise that I'll stay behind in Florida, and I'll not put out those "negative vibes" that I'm sure you feel would affect the test. Or are those tapes now lost, or perhaps not available for legal reasons?

In closing, I'll add: When I was in the UK a few years ago, I asked Sheldrake if I could test his wonder-dog, but I was told that the dog -- and its owners -- didn't want me around. I think that explains a lot about how willing Sheldrake is to face real, independent, examination of his claims.

- J.R.

The entire thing is a he said/she said, but based on statements made, I think Sheldrake is misrepresenting to his benefit. He was also too well prepared IMOP with his answer.

[JoeP]

GIT, I was going to respond, but I just read ladajo's last post and I pretty much had the same kind of analysis.

The entire thing is a he said/she said, but based on statements made, I think Sheldrake is misrepresenting to his benefit. He was also too well prepared IMOP with his answer.

Plus, I'll add that Randi has a history of giving fair opportunity to individuals making fantastic claims, so naturally I squint my eyes a bit when this Sheldrake starts calling Randi out as an incompetent and a liar.

[GIThruster]

I think you're leaning way too hard in favor of what you'd like to be the case. In any event, where JREF writes:

We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail.

they are obviously misleading their audience, and this should be obvious. Anyone reading this would expect this means they had actually looked at the specific claims and tested them, and they admit they did not do this. They had plenty of opportunity to say what they should have said and they did not until their feet were held to the fire on the issue. Were I Sheldrake I would not avail myself to folks like this either.

This is not however the really interesting stuff. What's most interesting to me is how people ignore evidence and favor their preconceptions. I think Sheldrake's comments about why this happens are completely correct. He's got the answer right so far as epistemology is concerned as well as the historic setting. By comparison Randi's group is all simple reductionist group-thinking through the issue without actually looking at the issue.

BTW, I'm no fan of this stuff. I had a friend ask me for my analysis so I gave it. He likewise sent a link to Dean Radin whom I have heard of for years but constantly ignored because I too had these preconceptions about flawed testing protocols and meager findings. When you stop however, and actually look at the details, it is pretty obvious that guys like Radin and Sheldrake are doing good science, and coming up with something other than the statistical norm. Especially in Radin's case where there are so many tens of thousands of data points, its just impossible to look at the data and not find what he finds. Otherwise you're stuck positing a ridiculous global conspiracy amongst careful scientists doing this research in more than a dozen reputable universities--and since there is no evidence of this, it's silly to support a preconception by casting unsupportable judgements against these very large groups.

And just about Randi, I have always thought his skeptics challenge a great foil against this "nonsense". I was not however aware of the stipulations he has placed on the offer. For the level of statistical probability he requires one would need to take millions of data points. he cleverly doesn't mention this. Princeton's lab was open for 28 years full time and it never acquired the kinds of volume needed to meet Randi's requirements. Obviously that was a very safe bet Randi made, and more than a little misrepresented.

[Skipjack]

I think Sheldrake is full of it. The JRef is always planning the tests together with the applicants. The applicants always agree to the test protocol.

[GIThruster]

Obviously you didn't watch the vid, and yet you've passed judgement.

Honestly, I think I may develop some new jargon for the claims/skeptics rhetoric that precises between "passing judgement" and "passing proclamation" or some such. (Needs to be catchier.) If one doesn't avail themselves to the facts, one can't really say they've made a judgement. Really all they've done is reaffirm a prejudice. That's fine so long as one is honest and owns "I haven't got the time to look at this" or what not. Not so good when one claims to have looked at the evidence and they haven't.

I love what he has to say about how we fall into the trap of confirming evidence at 1H 26M and following, including the very revealing stuff about Richard Dawkins. I have heard quite a bit of bad about Dawkins lack of integrity so I am not surprised.