serengetiplains said:
How would you explain the parallel challenge to Peter Belt? "Well, Uri Geller wears a belt, he's a psychic fraud, AHA, bogus, bogus, bogus!"
I have seen and read examples of Randi and his challenge. He is a very straight shooter and will not squirm his way out with legalese. You can accept his challenge with no fear it will degenerate into a debate about what "the meaning of 'is' is". He appears to be quite well off, and I'm sure he could write a check for $1M with little or no strain.
Actually, his attention appears to have been drawn to them by one of the principle guys at QSC. You really should read up on this at the Randi website.
Fat chance. I've not met him personally, but I have seen film/videos of him in action. This is not a guy prone to confusion.
"On your mark ..."
I know what you're talking about. I've seen video tape of the guy running the 400m hurdles while at the same time dee-bunking stupidity. I honestly don't know any person who can clear hurdles *and* stupidity in one cognitive-physical leap!
sam9 said:
I know what you're talking about. I've seen video tape of the guy running the 400m hurdles while at the same time dee-bunking stupidity. I honestly don't know any person who can clear hurdles *and* stupidity in one cognitive-physical leap!
No hurdles at his age, but in his youth, he was a master escape artist in the mode of his hero, Houdini. Canadian, too- originally from Toronto. Won the $1MM MacArthur Genius Award.
SY:
Read the page you linked from Randi's website in post #188.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=462693#post462693
What Randi seems to be saying, or suggesting, is that the use of the QSC ABX Comparator for testing purposes.
If someone has some qualms about the ABX test or the Comparator, I wonder if Randi would pay the money.
I'm sure he would pay it if you pass the test using the Comparator, but I wonder if he would be amenable to other tests.
I have nothing against the ABX test or the QSC unit. However, that seems to be what Randi is suggesting as the basis for the test.
Read the page you linked from Randi's website in post #188.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=462693#post462693
What Randi seems to be saying, or suggesting, is that the use of the QSC ABX Comparator for testing purposes.
If someone has some qualms about the ABX test or the Comparator, I wonder if Randi would pay the money.
I'm sure he would pay it if you pass the test using the Comparator, but I wonder if he would be amenable to other tests.
I have nothing against the ABX test or the QSC unit. However, that seems to be what Randi is suggesting as the basis for the test.
john curl said:
John,
Did you also make him aware that the curves in Fig 2 and 3 on the dymo test page show identical curves yet are flogged as two different tests?
So, what would happen if I call him? Would he reveal to me the secret behind how the Shaktis really work, so that in a flash of insight I would UNDERSTAND? Understand what apparently is cleverly hidden in all his websites, advertising, etc?
Jan Didden
Fascinating thread. Shakti stones. Be easy enought to see if they have an effect on audio electronic equipment behaviour. If they do, is it one that's audible to a listener?
If Randi and Shakti were to agree to a test would they agree to protocols at least as rigorous as these?
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/quality/reports.php
But, more germane to our general interests, and to comments about testing earlier in the thread, if it is an audible difference, is it one that generally enhances listening to music? Is it a big enhancement or a small one? And is it the result of an added artifact or a subtracted one? These questions aren't always easily answered.
What is definitely a problem open to scientific investigation is that a lot of people can agree on what is good and bad reproduced musical sound when they hear it, but that it's not always clear what makes it good or bad.
My opinion -as an audiophile who started out over 40years ago building Heathkits and horn speakers- is that engineering expertise and materials for making good reproduced musical sound are available, but that some critical components of good sound are not well known (either to designers or end users) and that some are not yet discovered (or, at least, not formally described with appropriate theoretical and experimental underpinning). The parameters are psychoacoustically determined and not easy to winkle out.
See examples of recent research approaches found after a very cursory online search:
http://web.iol.cz/etos/AES116S.htm
http://web.iol.cz/etos/AES116S.htm
http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionF.cfm
http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/php/projects.php
Contents of the 2003 AES journal:
http://www.aes-japan.org/journal/journal_2003.html
(It's probably not coincidental that Nokia, like Bell did in its own labs 70 years ago, is sponsoring research in this area in universities all over the world).
The audiophile engineering approach (which is not unreasonable) has been to attempt to produce equipment which does not introduce any new artifacts to the signal plugged into the reproduction chain so that the signal produced by the speaker is a faithful analogue of the original signal.
How well does this accord with the nature of human hearing and musical experience? I don't think many people know how to answer this adequately. I don't.
What the hell does it matter, if the listening room is inadequate? Nearly all small rooms are inadequate.
If microphones listen flat and human ears do not, do I want a flat system response? Probably not.
I listen to big music -symphonies, opera, choral music- and compression, room characteristics, masking effects, if allowed to play out, don't have subtle effects: the sound becomes crappy. I have to deal with these things and fortunately there are straight forward procedures an amateur like me can do: (eg) room treatment, more narrowly radiating speakers, active crossovers, better EQ.
I do these things and there's great improvement, more listening pleasure, etc. Now what? I've optimized. And I'm still not that pleased with the results.
Which system design decisions, at the margin, are going to make a significant difference in sound quality, now?
Exotic speaker cables? Thingamajigs to put under or in my equipment? These things are generally speaking, costly, and from that point of view I'm now at diminishing returns.
If I still want big improvements, then I'm better off thinking about starting again from scratch, improving every aspect of the chain. and there's not much point in doing that, I think, if I'm not up to speed on latest pyschoacoustical research regarding reproduced sound... The list of performance requirements for the new system will be incomplete, if not in error.
Perhaps, when I've completed this next iteration I might be ready for something like Shakti stones.
If Randi and Shakti were to agree to a test would they agree to protocols at least as rigorous as these?
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/quality/reports.php
But, more germane to our general interests, and to comments about testing earlier in the thread, if it is an audible difference, is it one that generally enhances listening to music? Is it a big enhancement or a small one? And is it the result of an added artifact or a subtracted one? These questions aren't always easily answered.
What is definitely a problem open to scientific investigation is that a lot of people can agree on what is good and bad reproduced musical sound when they hear it, but that it's not always clear what makes it good or bad.
My opinion -as an audiophile who started out over 40years ago building Heathkits and horn speakers- is that engineering expertise and materials for making good reproduced musical sound are available, but that some critical components of good sound are not well known (either to designers or end users) and that some are not yet discovered (or, at least, not formally described with appropriate theoretical and experimental underpinning). The parameters are psychoacoustically determined and not easy to winkle out.
See examples of recent research approaches found after a very cursory online search:
http://web.iol.cz/etos/AES116S.htm
http://web.iol.cz/etos/AES116S.htm
http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionF.cfm
http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/php/projects.php
Contents of the 2003 AES journal:
http://www.aes-japan.org/journal/journal_2003.html
(It's probably not coincidental that Nokia, like Bell did in its own labs 70 years ago, is sponsoring research in this area in universities all over the world).
The audiophile engineering approach (which is not unreasonable) has been to attempt to produce equipment which does not introduce any new artifacts to the signal plugged into the reproduction chain so that the signal produced by the speaker is a faithful analogue of the original signal.
How well does this accord with the nature of human hearing and musical experience? I don't think many people know how to answer this adequately. I don't.
What the hell does it matter, if the listening room is inadequate? Nearly all small rooms are inadequate.
If microphones listen flat and human ears do not, do I want a flat system response? Probably not.
I listen to big music -symphonies, opera, choral music- and compression, room characteristics, masking effects, if allowed to play out, don't have subtle effects: the sound becomes crappy. I have to deal with these things and fortunately there are straight forward procedures an amateur like me can do: (eg) room treatment, more narrowly radiating speakers, active crossovers, better EQ.
I do these things and there's great improvement, more listening pleasure, etc. Now what? I've optimized. And I'm still not that pleased with the results.
Which system design decisions, at the margin, are going to make a significant difference in sound quality, now?
Exotic speaker cables? Thingamajigs to put under or in my equipment? These things are generally speaking, costly, and from that point of view I'm now at diminishing returns.
If I still want big improvements, then I'm better off thinking about starting again from scratch, improving every aspect of the chain. and there's not much point in doing that, I think, if I'm not up to speed on latest pyschoacoustical research regarding reproduced sound... The list of performance requirements for the new system will be incomplete, if not in error.
Perhaps, when I've completed this next iteration I might be ready for something like Shakti stones.
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.
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.
Konnichiwa,
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).
If he did I would call him an idiot and get his million, 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.
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. So, it leaves us exactly where we started.
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.
I wish people would start approaching things scientifically instead of all that publicity stunt charlatanerie and debunking, fat chance of that of course.
Sayonara
kelticwizard said:
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).
If he did I would call him an idiot and get his million, 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.
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. So, it leaves us exactly where we started.
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.
I wish people would start approaching things scientifically instead of all that publicity stunt charlatanerie and debunking, fat chance of that of course.
Sayonara
john curl said:
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.
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" !
/
Funny - my bet is that no one (incl. myself) has tested a stone.
Now we wanna know if they are the "fift element" !
/
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.
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.
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? ;-)
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? ;-)
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thank you John, that's a clear answer.
Jan Didden
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?
john curl said:
Thank you John, that's a clear answer.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.