 |
 |
|
Remote ViewingI've had some fun over the past couple of days arguing against remote viewers (people who claim to be able to see an object or location without really seeing it). One of the main sites I enjoy ridiculing is www.psitech.net. Recently, Randi informed them of his $1 million challenge, hoping that maybe, they would be able to demonstrate psychic powers (well, maybe "hoping" is too strong a word...). Anyway, they proposed a counterchallenge: If he proved them wrong, then he would get $100 thousand from them. The catch? They required that Randi conform to their protocol. Was their protocol a good, double-blind test? Of course not. Below, I have pasted a part of the challenge, showing that it is in fact a single-blind test (the full version is at http://www.psitech.net/news/tsl_090502.htm). 5) The judges, by majority vote, must agree that the data submitted by PSI TECH matches the blind target with enough accuracy so that any reasonable person would have to concur that psychic functioning does exist. The judges' decision is final, and the losing party will immediately forfeit the money put into escrow. In other words you will lose your million dollars if the judges determine that PSI TECH has accurately described the target. Clearly, the judges would know is advance which target was selected. If, say, the data submitted by psitech is very general ("it's sort of round..."), then it could possibly match the target, regardless of what the target is. Here is what the protocol should be: The judges will be told the chosen target, along with 9 decoys. They will not be told which is the actual target, and which are the decoys. They then will attempt to decide which target was chosen based on the information from PSI TECH. If they are correct, the test will be counted as a "hit," if not, a "miss." The whole procedure will be repeated at least 20 times. If the number of hits is statistically significant, then PSI TECH shall be declared the winner; otherwise, the JREF is the winner. Will they do this? No. They know that this test would prove them to have no powers, and would therefore not ever allow such a test to be run. Of course, psitech isn't the only group playing the remote viewing game. Another such group is the Hawai'i Remote Viewer's Guild. They are of interest for one reason: They submitted to a double blind test arranged by the JREF. And they failed. There is information about this test here; the group's response is here. Note that, like many JREF applicants, they complain about the protocol afterwards, and say that the test had a positive result, even though they failed to do what they said they would do. Quite characteristic of them, I may note. A few nights ago, I was debating this at the JREF IRC channel, and someone challenged me to do a RV for him. Here is a transcript: <blahtorvers> anyways i give you the numbers 6296/9218<blahtorvers> always use eight numbers <blahtorvers> two sets of four <blahtorvers> like in my example <rwald> OK. I'm seeing the object... <rwald> It has about 2 colors... <blahtorvers> so anyone take those numbers and tell me what you see <blahtorvers> describe it rwald <rwald> I think one of them is an earth tone...brown, or green.. <rwald> It's sort of round. <rwald> It has some metal parts. <rwald> The irony is, either way I do, I prove you right. <blahtorvers> what kind of texture <blahtorvers> how is that <rwald> A little rough...like a rough cloth, but not like sandpaper. <blahtorvers> how does it smell <rwald> A little musty. <blahtorvers> how does it taste <rwald> Dusty. <rwald> Not good to eat. <blahtorvers> what is its temperature <rwald> Maybe 5, 10 degrees below room temperature? I'm definitely getting "cold" from it. <blahtorvers> what do you hear <rwald> I don't really hear much in assotiation with this...maybe, some soft "pop" noises. <blahtorvers> what are the dimensions? <rwald> Medium sized...maybe between a cubic foot and 3 cubic feet. <blahtorvers> more descriptive <rwald> It's kinda flat...not, paper thin, but still, not a cube. <blahtorvers> and is it natural or manmade <rwald> I'm sensing a little bit of both...maybe, taking some natural products and adding some man-made processing to them. <Sauron> waa.. I leave for three seconds and rwald is RVing <rwald> Sorry. <blahtorvers> yeh sauron <rwald> Any other questions? <blahtorvers> so rwald, last question needs to be answered <blahtorvers> natural or manmade <rwald> Well, I'm thinking that it has some parts which were natural but were processed, and some other parts which are entirely mane-made. <rwald> *man-made <blahtorvers> describe the differences <rwald> What do you mean? <blahtorvers> between the different parts <blahtorvers> you said some natural and some manmade <rwald> The two are intertwined...the natural part is more important, but the manmade helps, too. <rwald> So, the natural part is more important. <rwald> That enough for you? <blahtorvers> yeh, any guesses with your info you described <rwald> I'm thinking that it's used in the home. <rwald> Maybe, a leisure time activity. <rwald> That's really all I'm seeing. <blahtorvers> what is the time frame, past present or future <Sauron> I have a program compiling all 8 digit combinations. <rwald> Time frame of what? <rwald> The object currently exists. <blahtorvers> the taget <blahtorvers> target <blahtorvers> okay <blahtorvers> so it is small and used in the home and it is rough and musty smelling <rwald> Basically. Of course, the internet isn't a good medium for my RV powers. <blahtorvers> also it is brown and green <blahtorvers> yeh <rwald> Green or brown. <rwald> With a second color; I didn't see which. <rwald> Not all of that might be true...after all, this was my first reading. <blahtorvers> so what is used in the home that is natural small and smells musty with a popping noise and is colored brown and green? <rwald> I'm not sure. Again, I could be wrong about a few of the parts. <blahtorvers> well the target is not small or green <blahtorvers> or brown <rwald> What is it? <blahtorvers> it is smooth <rwald> ? <blahtorvers> not rough <blahtorvers> i can not be used in the home <rwald> not like sandpaper, though <blahtorvers> maybe as a lawn ordament in the future <blahtorvers> but not now <blahtorvers> any guesses <blahtorvers> to what i just described At this point, I had to leave, but I noted one thing which blahtovers said while I was gone: <blahtorvers> the space shuttle So, I came back, and continued where I left off <rwald> The nose cone is round, just like I said. <Bruce> You can do better than that! <Magnifico> round nose cone, check. <blahtorvers> very good rwald <Magnifico> Moi? <rwald> It has metal parts; the tiles aren't completely smooth... <blahtorvers> and it is small and can fit in your house, right? <rwald> I told you that the internet was interfereing with the transmitiion. <blahtorvers> good try rwald <blahtorvers> maybe next time <rwald> It's not good to eat; it's in space, where it's cold... -Sauron- Please tell me you're not buying into this. <blahtorvers> go get the training <blahtorvers> and it is small and in your house, right? <rwald> When it's moving through space, it's kinda silent, but makes some mechanical popping noises. <rwald> I told you there were some errors. I was right. <Bruce> I tried remote viewing once. It was pretty boring. Remotes aren't much to look at. <Magnifico> LOL <rwald> The glass in natural (sand > silicon > glass), and without it, the whole thing would implode. <Magnifico> I must be off, it was nice meeting you all, slainte! <Sauron> Later Magnifico <Bruce> bye *** Signoff: Magnifico (Quit: Leaving) <rwald> It's not cube-shaped, nor is it completely flat. <rwald> And it currently exists. <rwald> How many hits was that? *** Signoff: Bruce (Quit: Leaving) <rwald> Definitely more than half of them. <rwald> You see? If I can RV, then there's nothing to it. <Sauron> 5% done. <blahtorvers> yeh, you were right on <blahtorvers> and anyone can see that' <rwald> I owe it all to the 8 random numbers. *** seraph9k (jirc@206.152.249.157) has joined channel #JREF <rwald> They told me that it was the space shuttle, even thought they were totally random. <rwald> Hi seraph9k. <seraph9k> Hi <rwald> Earlier, I did a RVing for blah, and now I'm showing that it was correct. <rwald> (I'm a skeptic) <blahtorvers> rwald, we are all skeptics <blahtorvers> especially me <blahtorvers> anyone in here a skeptic? <rwald> Anyone in here understand a double blind test? <RJKUgly_> I'm somewhat skeptical that you are. Does that count? <rwald> lol <rwald> The point shown by my RV is that, in a single blind test, I can make it look like my RV was succesful. <blahtorvers> sure <blahtorvers> not really <blahtorvers> but okay rwald <rwald> But look how many things I got right! <seraph9k> Uh, huh. There's a sheet of paper hanging over my desk. Remote view that. <Sauron> seraph9k you weren't here. rwald is making sense. <Sauron> He did a single blind "TRV" but it shows the flaw of the PsiTech counterchallenge. <blahtorvers> maybe you should take the training rwald, you could be the best one day <blahtorvers> besides the best guys could say it is a shuttle not just that it is round <rwald> I prefer to make money *not* by swindeling people out of theirs. <rwald> Could they? *** Signoff: seraph9k (Quit: Leaving) *** seraph9k (jirc@206.152.249.157) has joined channel #JREF <seraph9k> Ack. <blahtorvers> how is it swindling? <rwald> I count at least 7 things I got correct. <seraph9k> Out of how many? (Just curious.) <blahtorvers> what is the swindle rwald? *** badger (jirc@209.90.184.199) has joined channel #JREF <RJKUgly_> Things like taking money for pure guesswork and after the fact rationalization are swindling. <rwald> Out of about 14 guesses. <seraph9k> ok <rwald> That's pretty good, considering I was working over an internet connection. <rwald> This enegry propagates better over air than metal wires. <blahtorvers> rwald how do you figure you were even close <rwald> Probably because the air is less dense, so they're some room for it to travel. <seraph9k> I'm not impressed by psychics who need to use computers to connect to the internet, personally. (Just an observation :) <Sauron> lol <Sauron> The actual term for that is Technomancy. <rwald> I got over half correct? <rwald> *! <rwald> How accurate are the tvrers? Including all their misses? <rwald> Keeping in mind that I don't know very many good "generalizations" to mention. *** Signoff: badger (Quit: Leaving) <blahtorvers> a good one can be accurate 80% of the time <seraph9k> Well, seven years without a single hit, here. . . <blahtorvers> that is what i have read <seraph9k> and I know of about 10 who've actually tried. <RJKUgly_> accurate in whose estimation? <rwald> Really? Honestly, if they know what are good generalizations, 80% wouldn't surprise me. <rwald> I mean, you saw how I used "cold" to describe it. <rwald> If I said "hot," I could still use it. <blahtorvers> well, if they tell you it is an apple or they draw a picture of an apple, that is not a generalizatuion <rwald> But they don't. <blahtorvers> yes they do <Sauron> Your questions were somewhat leading, as well. They did give certain vague parameters to work within. <rwald> Prove it. <rwald> Show me an example. <blahtorvers> just go to the sight <rwald> And remember, you'll need to have ALL the tries they've ever done. <RJKUgly_> But if the draw a sloppy cicle or a somthing vaguely roundish, and then claim it's an apple, I'm less than impressed. <blahtorvers> actually take some time to look at it and read <rwald> A smaller example of this is how I got 7 things right. If you thought I only made 9 guesses, you would think I was very good. <rwald> So, if they get it "spot-on" 1 time out of 200, that doesn't matter. <blahtorvers> if you drew a picture of a shuttle i would be impressed <rwald> Yes. But, if you give me 199 more chances, then I might do that well. <seraph9k> It would depend on the drawing, I think. <blahtorvers> if they draw a picture of a target and it is say an apple and they can do it 50% of the time and they draw an apple, that is amazing, any way you look at it' <rwald> But do they? <rwald> If they consistantly get "spot-on," that's one thing. <rwald> But one example does not a proof make. <seraph9k> Maybe. . . again, it would depend on how good a drawing of an apple it was. I'm not inclined to give an "apple" a hit if the drawing is of a circle with a line coming out of it. <rwald> And if this is so, then why do they not accept a double blind challenge? <seraph9k> Probably for the same reason that they seem oddly unable to read a series of random numbers. If I was able to get 50% accuracy on my first try with a single blind test, then how well can prepared people do? Clearly single blind evidence means nothing. So, in conclusion, until a good, double-blind experiment shows remote viewers to have any power, their claims have no value. |