...At The James Randi Educational Foundation

[Anonymous]

Assessing the attitudes of the skeptics on the JREF forum from the 'Ladybrook' thread would be very misleading. Lucianarchy has a long history on the board and a bit of a - shall we say, reputation - there, and as a result has close to zero credibility. Of course there are a fair few arseholes there, but that's true of every messageboard, including this one.

You might be surprised at the openness of many of the JREF posters. At any rate, if you want to criticise them as a group (rather than the vocal minority who are not that representative of the whole), please try a little harder than the Skeptic strawmen that have been constructed here - all this stuff about 'gestapo' and 'brownshirts' - come on, I'm sure you can do a bit better than that.

Lordshiva - just because Randi has been accused of fraud doesn't mean he is a fraud. Is there any evidence for his fraudulent behaviour, as opposed to accusations?

Hugo Cornwall - the details of the JREF $1m challenge are up on the website for all to see. Any test protocol has to be agreed by both parties. Can you provide details of which claimants supposedly had the goalposts moved with respect to their claims?

 

[Alexius4]

Now, now, gentlemen.

I know my comments were directed at those bullies who distort beautiful things like logic and science to gratify themselves at others expense. It does not extend to all, of course.

A debate upon the specific merits of Mr. Randi and his organisation would, I feel, be an appropriate topic for a new thread (especially as it shows potential for becoming poisonous).

In the mean time, let's maintain the tradition of incisive commentary and Wildean wit

Mr Ascii - I wish you well and look forward to hearing about the results.

 

[Anonymous]

Unequivocal apology... Just the feeling I get reading some of the things posted and therfore unsubstansiated. It was probably bad editing that gave me that opinion.

As to Alexius' comment... as always the voice of reason dear fellow! My apologies there too...

I do stand by my other comments, since no side is free of Zealotry

 

[Alexius4]

Hugo, I'm sure no apology is warrented - though all respect to the manly gesture.

Hugo is right - time for all combatants, potential or otherwise, to do the firm handshake thing and return to the serious business of being intellectually well-endowed and funny

 

[Alexius4]

Gent & Scholar that he is, Bilderberger has opened a 'Randi' thread on Parapsychology.

Everyone will be frisked for flick-knives, knuckle-dusters and motorcycle chains upon entry

 

[Anonymous]

Another fine thread, thanks to the genius of Alexius. I'm awaiting the results with much interest!

 

[Alexius4]

Pleasure's all mine....but really the thread belongs to Lucian - I'm just tossing me orb about, as always

 

[Anonymous]

OK. Well there were quite a few people there last night.

Alexius, you gave me a 'face of innocence'. It was a young, non-european. The face was lit by sunlight, and the skin was dark.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Lucianarchy
Could you tell if the face was male or female? BTW Great thread, thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

Assessing the attitudes of the skeptics on the JREF forum from the 'Ladybrook' thread would be very misleading. Lucianarchy has a long history on the board and a bit of a - shall we say, reputation - there, and as a result has close to zero credibility. Of course there are a fair few arseholes there, but that's true of every messageboard, including this one.

So it seems, James. What name do you post under at the JREF?
Perhaps you'd also be good enough to say what this "reputation" is about and provide some evidence. The reason I have such a hard time there is because I am what the late M.Truzzi said, a true skeptic as opposed to a pseudo-skeptic. F'rinst; It is evident that an anomalous effect can be measured and recorded under controlled, scientific conditions. We have the SAIC, Hyman's inability to provide a suitable candidate for error or fraud, and the replications of the PEAR PRP, which Hyman called for. That is a fact, indisputable and recorded. The 'psi' effect exists. Pseudo-skeptics can't accept this, and believe that anything outside of scientific understanding simply does not exist. 'True Unbelievers'.

Hugo Cornwall - the details of the JREF

Originally posted by JamesM
Assessing the attitudes of the skeptics on the JREF forum from the 'Ladybrook' thread would be very misleading. Lucianarchy has a long history on the board and a bit of a - shall we say, reputation - there, and as a result has close to zero credibility. Of course there are a fair few arseholes there, but that's true of every messageboard, including this one.

So it seems, James. What name do you post under at the JREF?
Perhaps you'd also be good enough to say what this "reputation" is about and provide some evidence. The reason I have such a hard time there is because I am what the late M.Truzzi said, a true skeptic as opposed to a pseudo-skeptic. F'rinst; It is evident that an anomalous effect can be measured and recorded under controlled, scientific conditions. We have the SAIC, Hyman's inability to provide a suitable candidate for error or fraud, and the replications of the PEAR PRP, which Hyman called for. That is a fact, indisputable and recorded. The 'psi' effect exists. Pseudo-skeptics can't accept this, and believe that anything outside of scientific understanding simply does not exist. 'True Unbelievers'.

Hugo Cornwall - the details of the JREF $1m challenge are up on the website for all to see. Any test protocol has to be agreed by both parties. Can you provide details of which claimants supposedly had the goalposts moved with respect to their claims?

m challenge are up on the website for all to see. Any test protocol has to be agreed by both parties. Can you provide details of which claimants supposedly had the goalposts moved with respect to their claims?

James, where do the JREF publish their test result data?

Where can one see a list and detail of previous applicants?

"self evident" to whom? Randi?

Who has the final say in this "agreement"?

Why isn't the application and protocol system independantly arbitrated for the sake of fairness?

These are good skeptical questions, James. For all we know, the guy could be doing a hustle here, bilking the rubes by pretending to be a skeptic. Didn't he used to do a similar thing at fairs and carnivals by doing a fake 'psychic' routine many years ago? How can you trust a professional charlatan? You must have addressed these questions, James, as a skeptic yourself. What are the answers?

 

[Anonymous]

Luci,

I post at the JREF forum under the same name I do here. I have no interest in getting into a flame war with you and I make no claims about whether your reputation at the JREF board is well-deserved or not, merely that it exists and that this provides an explanation for the manner in which The Ladybrook Affair was received. Anyone who wants to check your track-record can do so quite easily at the JREF forum, should they care to, and come to their own conclusions. I see we both agree that you have a "reputation" at the JREF forum; you've furnished us with your own explanation, so there's no need for me provide any further evidence.

James, where do the JREF publish their test result data?

I don't believe they do, but I don't recall claiming that they did.

Where can one see a list and detail of previous applicants?

As far as I'm aware, you can't, unless you volunteer to go to Ft Lauderdale to sort the records yourself.

"self evident" to whom? Randi?

I've checked my posts in this thread and the other Randi thread (where you have posted the same questions) to see if I used the words "self evident" anywhere in them. I didn't, so I have no idea what you're asking.

Who has the final say in this "agreement"?

The rules state both parties have to agree to the protocol.

Why isn't the application and protocol system independantly arbitrated for the sake of fairness?

The application system doesn't have to be arbitrated. It's the JREF's money, they're not obliged to test any and all claimants. As for independent arbitration of the protocol, to quote from the commentary I provided a link to in the other Randi thread:

If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules. It's always been this way

Seems fair enough to me.

How can you trust a professional charlatan?

It's a matter of absolute indifference to me whether Randi is a charlatan or not, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

You must have addressed these questions, James, as a skeptic yourself.

I've never claimed to be a skeptic.

What are the answers?

You're awfully good at asking questions, Luci. Now, how about answering some? As you can see, it's really not so difficult. There are plenty waiting for you at the JREF forum.

 

[Anonymous]

Luci,

I see we both agree that you have a "reputation" at the JREF forum; you've furnished us with your own explanation, so there's no need for me provide any further evidence.

Sorry, but you are wrong. You claimed I had a "reputation" at the JREF and "no credibility" there as a result. As you say, anyone can check my posting history. I have nothing to hide what so ever.
You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

The rules state both parties have to agree to the protocol.


The application system doesn't have to be arbitrated. It's the JREF's money, they're not obliged to test any and all claimants. As for independent arbitration of the protocol, to quote from the commentary I provided a link to in the other Randi thread:

Seems fair enough to me.

As you say, it's Randi's money, he has the final say. So the challenge is not a fair challenge at all is it? It has an inherent bias, surely, you must accept this?

You're awfully good at asking questions, Luci. Now, how about answering some? As you can see, it's really not so difficult. There are plenty waiting for you at the JREF forum.

Why would I want to answer a list comprising of hundreds of questions which I have not even made any claim over?

You see, those silly 'lists' and other such sophistry over at the JREF are exactly the kind of pseudo-skeptic diversions / straw targets which are employed whenever difficult data are presented. Just like SAIC and the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for, and got.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but I'm done answering your questions, Luci. I've observed your behaviour on the JREF board, and I know any sort of interaction with you is a sucker's game. Apologies in advance for not providing evidence for this claim.

I bear you no ill will, and I apologise if I have given the impression of trying to smear your reputation on this board. That was not my intention, which was to defend the behaviour of the vast majority of Skeptics on the JREF board, rather than to take a pop at you. I wish you the best of the luck with your latest RVing experiment.

 

[Anonymous]

Apologies in advance for not providing evidence for this claim.

I bear you no ill will, and I apologise if I have given the impression of trying to smear your reputation on this board.

OK, no problem.

Best witches!

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Lucianarchy
Could you tell if the face was male or female? BTW Great thread, thanks.

Hi, thanks. It appeared to be a young male.

 

[Alexius4]

Now, that was bracing ....

Back to the game: good stuff, Lucian - let's keep it coming; I'll see you at the corssroads again tonight.

Might be a good time for the controls bods to review L's statements so far.

Oh, and guys - please no questions about what L receives; it'll only take one leading question to bring this down flat on it's face.

As for 'reputations' on other boards...my understanding was that such acts of exposure were strictly verboten here, along with ad hominems, invective and other nastiness. Furthermore, carrying disputes over from other boards is also a no-no - there have been hangings for that kind of thing around these parts.

Just a thought

 

[Anonymous]

Assessing the attitudes of the skeptics on the JREF forum from the 'Ladybrook' thread would be very misleading. Lucianarchy has a long history on the board and a bit of a - shall we say, reputation - there, and as a result has close to zero credibility. Of course there are a fair few arseholes there, but that's true of every messageboard, including this one.

You might be surprised at the openness of many of the JREF posters. At any rate, if you want to criticise them as a group (rather than the vocal minority who are not that representative of the whole), please try a little harder than the Skeptic strawmen that have been constructed here - all this stuff about 'gestapo' and 'brownshirts' - come on, I'm sure you can do a bit better than that.

Lordshiva - just because Randi has been accused of fraud doesn't mean he is a fraud. Is there any evidence for his fraudulent behaviour, as opposed to accusations?

Hugo Cornwall - the details of the JREF

Originally posted by JamesM
Assessing the attitudes of the skeptics on the JREF forum from the 'Ladybrook' thread would be very misleading. Lucianarchy has a long history on the board and a bit of a - shall we say, reputation - there, and as a result has close to zero credibility. Of course there are a fair few arseholes there, but that's true of every messageboard, including this one.

You might be surprised at the openness of many of the JREF posters. At any rate, if you want to criticise them as a group (rather than the vocal minority who are not that representative of the whole), please try a little harder than the Skeptic strawmen that have been constructed here - all this stuff about 'gestapo' and 'brownshirts' - come on, I'm sure you can do a bit better than that.

Lordshiva - just because Randi has been accused of fraud doesn't mean he is a fraud. Is there any evidence for his fraudulent behaviour, as opposed to accusations?

Hugo Cornwall - the details of the JREF $1m challenge are up on the website for all to see. Any test protocol has to be agreed by both parties. Can you provide details of which claimants supposedly had the goalposts moved with respect to their claims?

m challenge are up on the website for all to see. Any test protocol has to be agreed by both parties. Can you provide details of which claimants supposedly had the goalposts moved with respect to their claims?

JamesM - just because some people from non-mainstream science backgrounds have been proven to be frauds doesn't mean that they all are. I personally do not think that it is fair to slander Lucianarchy's (or anyone else's) good name on this board on the basis of 'reputation' without accepting that people can do the same about Randi's on the basis of his 'reputation'.

If we could keep things a little more polite, I would feel a lot better about the whole thing - from my spectating the JREF forum, I can see how regulars might find this difficult (yourself excepted, of course).

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Now, that was bracing ....

Back to the game: good stuff, Lucian - let's keep it coming; I'll see you at the corssroads again tonight.

Might be a good time for the controls bods to review L's statements so far.

Oh, and guys - please no questions about what L receives; it'll only take one leading question to bring this down flat on it's face.

Congratulations on steering this thread through some choppy waters c'pn

So to recap these are Lucianarchy's readings so far (in chronological order - the first done without any meditation, the second with and the third quote is a clarification of the second):

OK. Well the first impression I got, as an exploration, was not a picture. It has the feeling of a bowl shaped, it has the characteristic of being black and shiny.

--------

Alexius, you gave me a 'face of innocence'. It was a young, non-european. The face was lit by sunlight, and the skin was dark

.

--------

It appeared to be a young male.

=======================
On the grading:

------------

On the scoring system....I propose to use the system used during telepathy experiments during the 70s whereby the image received is graded according to the numner of points of correspondancy with the stimulus.

For example - if the stimulus were a piicy of Big Ben, a set of received impressions involving clock faces, towers, water and London would be considered a fair hit.

If anybody can suggest other criteria for assessment, do feel free

Do you want to point us to a specific set of grading criteria for this or should we go by your guide (just to make sure we are on the same page)?

Also do you want our gradings PMed to you or should we keep them to ourselves and not communicate them to anyone?

Personally I'd prefer some kind of standard for the grading and keeping my grading close to my chest until the end (whilst making a halfway point grade).

Emps

 

[Alexius4]

Good point - let's get the protocol sorted, sifted & weighed.

I suggest everybody keeping their own counsel until the end of the game - which will be when Lucian draws the line. When all is done, the controls can pm me, with their judgements, which I will then transcribe here (with their permission)

I was considering compiling a check list of thematic correspondances, but it occurred to me that it would probably succeed in prejudicing everyone's judgement (my own included). I suggest keeping this as natural, and common sensical, as possible to avoid such traps - when the game is done, everybody pm me with their observations and then I'll release it onto the board for folk to judge for themselves.

As quotation 3 was a response to a question, I feel it ought to be put between brackets, so to speak, as being a little contaminated. It ought to be included in the assessment, but judged in context.

Would definitely welcome feed back from the control folks on this (and of course from Lucian ).

Lucian - so far we have conducted this as a totally blind test - we have tryed our level best to provide no stimulus so as to avoid leading you down the garden path. I would like to stick with that approach. However, we can approach this from a different tack as the game develops, and should we play it again (which I hope we will, as it has been intriguing and good fun).

Lucian, over to you

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Good point - let's get the protocol sorted, sifted & weighed.

Yep - if we get it right first time we can compare and contrast over time. I was going to suggest a 5 point scoring system and I looked around and found this:

http://www.farsight.org/demo/scoring.html

For some discussion:

http://www.emergentmind.org/SessionScoring.htm

http://12.158.191.239/~admin3/bi/rv.htm

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/rvcp.html

A paper on testing:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm

Some examples (there are more if you dig around):

http://www.greaterreality.com/rv/target02_3.htm

-----------
One thought - as well as describing the image perhaps a sketch might help clarify things?

Emps

 

[Alexius4]

Oh Emps you wonderful, wonderful person! I shall spend the day sifting through that, and post back with my musings.

In fact, everybody dive in - let's set up an FTMB protocol for this kind of malarky.

As for Lucian submitting a sketch - I like the idea, assuming that is what he/she (what gender are you, by the way? )actually receives. So far we've had discreet parcels, so words are enough.

I'd be inclined to leave that to Lucian's discretion.

 

[Alexius4]

I suggest using a combination of the 5 point system & the Match Judge one.

So here is an idea - Controls: view the image, and note down the details that strike you as defining it. When Lucian is done, count off the number of hits (or partial hits) and pm the results to gorgeous me. Then I'll post them here when they are all in.

Having done that, we can use the 5-point system to give an overall assessment.

What do you think, chaps & chappesses?

 

[Anonymous]

JamesM - just because some people from non-mainstream science backgrounds have been proven to be frauds doesn't mean that they all are.

Yes, quite. I don't think I've tried to claim otherwise.

I personally do not think that it is fair to slander Lucianarchy's (or anyone else's) good name on this board on the basis of 'reputation'

I'm not slandering anyone. I've already apologised for this (entirely imagined) slight against Luci's character, which I intended as merely a statement of fact (easily gleaned from the thread that Luci - not I - posted) rather than a character judgement. I obviously wasn't clear enough, so I'll do it again:

I apologise profusely for making any statement that appeared to reflect badly on Lucianarchy. My thoughts on the conduct of all posters on this board are kept firmly to myself. Sorry.

Ok?

without accepting that people can do the same about Randi's on the basis of his 'reputation'.

Er, but I do accept that. You can say whatever you want about Randi (as long as it doesn't break the rules of the forum). However, as you brought up the subject of Randi being accused of fraud, I asked what evidence there was of this. I don't see what's unreasonable about that.

If we could keep things a little more polite, I would feel a lot better about the whole thing

I have not insulted or accused you or anyone in this thread (or in any message to this board ever), so I don't consider my current conduct impolite. Of course, the mods may disagree. You are welcome not to respond to my posts if you don't like them.

 

[stu neville]

That was not my intention, which was to defend the behaviour of the vast majority of Skeptics on the JREF board...

As opposed to sceptics? Subtle but significant difference.

Might be a good time for the controls bods to review L's statements so far.

Have done .

As for 'reputations' on other boards...my understanding was that such acts of exposure were strictly verboten here, along with ad hominems, invective and other nastiness. Furthermore, carrying disputes over from other boards is also a no-no - there have been hangings for that kind of thing around these parts.

You are absolutely correct. What happens on other boards has nothing whatsoever to do with us, but if you start importing feuds and squabbles from elsewhere then it becomes our problem (and not unincidentally can completely derail otherwise fine threads in a miasma of bickering, only a small part of which would be understandable to all the other posters). Both Luci and James are members of this board on equal footing - please leave any lingering reservations about one another at the door.

I have not insulted or accused you or anyone in this thread (or in any message to this board ever), so I don't consider my current conduct impolite. Of course, the mods may disagree. You are welcome not to respond to my posts if you don't like them.

Impolite, no, but a tad brusque maybe. And you did state, on thread, that Lucianarchy has a reputation elsewhere for making exaggerated claims: in fact this accusation is only in the context of a message board which is actively dismissive of claims of paranormal ability in the first place. This board, however, is hopefully more impartial - we shall see what Lucianarchy comes up with. As a control myself, I will observe with keen interest.

On with the thread.

 

[Anonymous]

As opposed to sceptics? Subtle but significant difference.

Yes. I observe the Fortean convention of differentiating between Skepticism and scepticism (although Skeptics don't, interestingly).

And you did state, on thread, that Lucianarchy has a reputation elsewhere for making exaggerated claims

I did not.

 

[stu neville]

I did not.

Yes you did. I didn't say that you accused him directly of grandiose claims, merely that you pointed out that he has a reputation for doing so:

I make no claims about whether your reputation at the JREF board is well-deserved or not, merely that it exists and that this provides an explanation for the manner in which The Ladybrook Affair was received... I see we both agree that you have a "reputation" at the JREF forum; you've furnished us with your own explanation, so there's no need for me provide any further evidence.

Potentially just as damaging to one's reputation on an otherwise impartial MB, and that is precisely why I'd like to see no more of it, thank you.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes you did. I didn't say that you accused him directly of grandiose claims, merely that you pointed out that he has a reputation for doing so

Sorry, I just want to be clear about this. As you're a mod, I would appreciate it if you didn't attribute statements to me that I didn't make. I said nothing about "exaggerated" or "grandiose" claims.

Nonetheless, it was an error of judgement and etiquette for me to have said anything that could have been construed in that way. I apologise again for being so stupid.

 

[stu neville]

Very well, the implication was that Lucianarchy's reputation wasn't a flattering one - to me, at least, the way in which you phrased the statement certainly implied such.

As for the apology, duly accepted I'm sure by all. Let's now move on .

 

[Anonymous]

It's been a positive experience meeting you, Alexius. Thank you.

Thank you also to Stu N and Empy who I believe acted as controls.

It seems like some bad feeling has arisen. I am sorry if I have played a part in this, but I'm sitting this dance out.

Let's call an end to this particular 'test', please.

Alexius, could you draw / paint / take a 'new' photograph of something and scan it to your control guys?

 

[Alexius4]

Ah Lucian, what a pity! Still, let's see how you did!

Chaps - you know the drill - grade away and post your pronouncements to me - then I can post 'em up and we can have a good old chin wag.

Time for you to taste a rest in preparation for the next one, Lucian. As I said, this has been very enjoyable.


Oh, and remember - the one thing in the world worse than being talked about is not being talked about....



And James, your silken chastisement is now at an end - I think you can relax now and enjoy yourself