Claim your $1M from the Great Randi - Page 22 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26th August 2004, 08:51 AM   #211
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally posted by john curl
Jann, I was going to ignore this thread at this point, because I learn more from the people who you are attacking than from you and others here who criticize without any real research.
It is so obvious how the Shakti Stones work now, that I am surprised that you haven't figured it out.
Your rant about dyno's work and their limits doesn't hold water with a better unit and a repeated test setup. +/- 1 HP should be possible through the tires, says Mustang, the dyno used in the website test.
John, I stand corrected: I know how they work, the mechanism, but as SY has pointed out, the important thing is the effect on say, the reproduction of music, or on performance of car engines. That I still do not understand, or maybe it is not a matter of not understanding but of not being able to find some credible test. I have not been able to find any testing on audio (and glorious adjective-laden rants of reviewers I do not count as tests).

I did find some automotive tests. There I have conflicting opinions on the resolution of the tests, and I have a case of identical curves presented as separate tests. Suppose I gloss that all over. Let us accept the curves thing as a genuine error and not a delibered fraud, and accept that there is a 1% difference in tests results. Let us also gloss over the fact that there are test differences if you repeat tests in say 20 min slots, resulting from environmental and DUT variation with time.
Now are you willing to tell me honestly and squarly to my face that you personally are convinced that this 1% increase is the result, without any doubt on your part, of placing Shakti stones as indicated on the engine parts?

Jan Didden

BTW No need to ignore this complete thread. You can just ignore my or other critics' posts, there is a facility in the User CP I think it is that lets you put individual members in a so-called ignore file. Works like a charm.
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W S Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 10:52 AM   #212
TNT is offline TNT  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
TNT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sweden
I think Randi should focus on the Belt stuff. The "sschtones" has after all magnets in them that will laffect a nerby object. Hell - people pay dollars to get resistors and connectors which are non magnetic.

Funny - my bet is that no one (incl. myself) has tested a stone.


Now we wanna know if they are the "fift element" !

/
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 12:32 PM   #213
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
keltic, based on what Randi has done in the past with claimants, it is likely that test protocols other than ABX will be accepted as long as they are truly blind and secure. For Shakti stones, if I were taking the test, I can think of several ways that a proper controlled test could be structured. For the Challenge, tests are generally negociated individually, tailored to the specific claims being made.

The key is that each party agrees to the protocol in advance. True Believers can whine, stomp their feet, call names, kick sand, whatever, but it's a fair test. And the protocols can be quite simple. My favorite one was a girl who claimed a Geller-like ability to bend spoons using her psychic powers- but unlike Geller, she claimed, SHE wasn't a fake. So, he sat her at a table, put a spoon in front of her, turned on the video camera, and let her have at it- except that he put carbon black on the bowl of the spoon to show up any mechanical tampering. Needless to say, she is not a million dollars richer.

C'mon guys. It's a million bucks. Surely ONE of you can stop making excuses, dream up a proper test, and claim the money. We could sure use our 10% cut.

BTW, I'll mention a proper test using a dynamo, for the benefit of people like me with quite ordinary hearing. An independent lab does a series of dyno runs with and without the magic stones. They code each dyno output chart randomly. The claimant then has to separate the charts into two groups, charts of engine-with-stone and charts of engine-without-stone. Use statistics, eyeballs, whatever, just be able to show that there is a difference.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 01:03 PM   #214
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
I'm with you SY. Hell, if I were in the Fortune-500, I'd double Randi's stash!

Jan Didden
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W S Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 05:34 PM   #215
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
SY, I don't believe you. I believe that the Shakti Stones are EXEMPT from the 1M prize, BECAUSE they have a PHYSICAL cause, NOT a PARANORMAL one.
Jan, I have NOT tried the SHAKTI STONES on my Porsche or my Acura, but if I wasn't so lazy, I would. I have no reason to doubt Ben, when he tells me that the tests were made by OTHERS who tried his stuff and it WORKED for them! The reason why is obvious to an electronics engineer. What do you do for a living? ;-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 05:46 PM   #216
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Good input, Kuei. You and I don't know each other, BUT we think much alike!
Unfortunately, your cynicism is well placed. I have fought this battle for 25 years, to almost deaf ears, even when I did catch them 'red-handed' in making several significant test errors. My comments, at first, were mostly technical mistakes, but I also agree that this 95% business is nonsense! It always was: nonsense!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 06:14 PM   #217
RHosch is offline RHosch  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SouthEast
I believe the mechanism responsible for causing people to claim to understand things which are illogical and to claim to hear things which is in the big picture one and the same. Sad, really.

Quote:
Originally posted by john curl:

SY, I don't believe you. I believe that the Shakti Stones are EXEMPT from the 1M prize, BECAUSE they have a PHYSICAL cause, NOT a PARANORMAL one.
As was pointed out previously, ANY "winner" of the Randi challenge would have done so by demonstrating a previously unknown or unbelieved PHYSICAL phenomenon, not a paranormal one. That Randi uses the term paranormal in his challenge is a convienient reference to a class of things which has no basis in current physical understanding (and thus are believed not to exist). Were anyone to demonstrate a "paranormal" ability, it would no longer be classified as paranormal. Thus Shakti's "lawyer's" rejection is a thinly disguised one. A cop out. Unless you are suggesting that Randi would never pay anyone for demonstrating any ability, purely on the grounds of a pretty lame semantic loophole.

Sorry, that's just not Randi. That's the parties that continue to weasel out of his challenge.

Quote:
KYW:

The use of the ABX Comperator is not an indication that something is amiss, but one does wonders if Randi would accept a few trials (I found after 5 "trials" my attention wanders off and I start scoring more and more random, poor attention span is one of my problems) and an apropriate level of statistic significance (say .4 which is apropriate to small differences on 5 Trials).
Please explain how .4 is an appropriate level of significance for ANY number of trials!?! The obvious fact is that 5 trials is simply not enough to reach an acceptable level of stastical significance. Give me a few minutes and I'll prove that I can psychically force a coin to turn up heads 5 times in a row... proven to your standards, at least. If you experience listener fatigue after 5 trials, fine. That's easily accomodated in any controlled testing by breaking the test into multiple sessions... as many as are needed.

Quote:
If he did I would call him an idiot and get his million
Of course he would be an idiot if he accepted such a ridiculously low level of significance. And I think the same of anyone who actually thinks such a level has any meaning, or is appropriate under any circumstances.

Quote:
if not then I would have to say that if he insists on a higher level of significance he is a FRAUD (or as pointed out earlier - a charlatan) as he would in effect be assuring null results statistically.
What... you mean you fault a challenge that has a sole purpose establishing factual proof for any unexpected or unbelievable phenomenon for actually wanting to use FACTUAL PROOF as the basis of judgement?

Quote:
Indeed, I call anyone a charlatan who did a DBT for small differnences with only 1 - 5 personsn and the standard ABX Protocol and .05 significance.
Again, why is .05 any less appropriate for one person than for one million? In the case of one person it simply means an larger number of trials are needed to reach that level of confidence. And I think you may have a fundamental misconception about the arrival of confidence levels as they apply to a small test group. It's ok if you, a single individual, can only correctly identify a subtle change correctly 60% of the time (just a little better than guessing randomly). While 20 trials would not show your ability to a sufficient level of confidence, taking more would. After a few hundred trials, where you averaged about 60% correct, you would have easily established to a 95% confidence level your ability to do better than chance alone would predict. If I flip a coin 20 times and "force" it to come up heads 12 times, I would have proven absolutely nothing (even more ridiculous if it came up heads 4 out of 5 times). But if it comes up heads 60 out of 100, things are more interesting. And if it comes up heads 600 out of 1000, you can bet that scientists would take the evidence seriously.

Quote:
Unless someone is willing to conduct a serious study with large numbers of participants no proof would accrue, EVEN if the Randi challenge is passed in such a case.
To drive the point home, you don't need large numbers of participants. Just one, with a sufficient number of trials, will do nicely. I think I said this way back in this thread... controlled testing can easily prove the positive with just one single individual. Wine tasters do such all the time. You don't need statistical averaging over large groups of people unless your only purpose is to find the average level of sensitivity in a population to a particular thing. If you're proving one person's claimed ability, that person is the only participant needed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 06:19 PM   #218
sam9 is offline sam9  United States
diyAudio Member
 
sam9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Left Coast
Quote:
SY, I don't believe you. I believe that the Shakti Stones are EXEMPT from the 1M prize, BECAUSE they have a PHYSICAL cause, NOT a PARANORMAL one.
Sorry to be blunt - it doesn't matter what you believe. Randi has published his letter to the assorted reviewers making his challenge quite explicit. The challenge, in this case, does NOT require demonstration of a paranormal cause. The text of the letters is available on the Randi website.

The objection as stated above is purely a strawman. There are many good reasons not to take up the challenge but to decline only on the basis above is just an excuse.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 06:28 PM   #219
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
I asked John Curl:

Now are you willing to tell me honestly and squarly to my face that you personally are convinced that this 1% increase is the result, without any doubt on your part, of placing Shakti stones as indicated on the engine parts?

Quote:
Originally posted by john curl
[snip]Jan, I have NOT tried the SHAKTI STONES on my Porsche or my Acura, but if I wasn't so lazy, I would. I have no reason to doubt Ben, when he tells me that the tests were made by OTHERS who tried his stuff and it WORKED for them! The reason why is obvious to an electronics engineer. What do you do for a living? ;-)
Thank you John, that's a clear answer.

Jan Didden
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W S Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2004, 06:28 PM   #220
diyAudio Member
 
serengetiplains's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by RHosch
Sorry, that's just not Randi.
Oh my, friends of Randi. And they give legal advice on the side. Bonus!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2