Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india,net.religion,net.philosophy,net.physics
Subject: Re: Comment about Uri Geller
Message-ID: <496@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 14:13:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.496
Posted: Fri Jun  7 14:13:46 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 07:29:09 EDT
References: <436@oakhill.UUCP> <3759@alice.UUCP> <440@oakhill.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 46
Xref: linus net.nlang.india:435 net.religion:6673 net.philosophy:1661 net.physics:2338
Summary: 

In article <440@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes:

>I think the situation is a lot more complex than this.
>
>First Uri claims not to exactly control what's going on.  He often has people
>hold things in their hand while he holds his over theirs.  Most of the time
>nothing happens.  But when something does it may be one of several things and
>he seems not to know what  to expect.
>
	This actually sounds like a very old type of trickery. In fact
he could be combining two related srts of misdirection here. First,
this could easily be a variant of the old "Change a trick in the
middle if it doesn't work right" trick. That is it is a wonderful way
of taking advantage of *whatever* happens and claiming he is
responsible for it! This is why Randi *insist* upon stating ahead of
time what one is going to do. Secondly, this is a good way of excusing
failures, if it doesn't work just claim "I have no real control", and
to add credibility to this pretend to be surprised by what happens
when the trick actually works(I mean why should I believe *anything*
Uri says since he is a proven faker.) And you are trying to use this
sort of garbage as evidence in *favor* of Uri Geller!

>So, the first problem is Uri's taking a test and failing would not necessarily
>disprove anything unless a lengthy and drawn out series of experiments were to
>be done - something I doubt either Randi or Uri would put up with.
>
	Oh, I think Randi would put up with almost any properly
designed experiment, even if it required numerous tests. But it
would have to be set up very rigorously, so that th e statistical
results would be meaningful. It is very easy to misuse statistics
if you are not properly trained in interprating such evidence.

>The second problem is deciding what constitutes proof of a paranormal event.
>If Uri cannot control exactly what happens how do you test for a range of
>unexpected events and conclusively prove it was paranormal. 
>
	It is called statistics, and given the motivation it should
be possible to devise a statistically valid test for variable PSI
phenonema, but it *must* have adequate controls and a very large
sample size, at the very least.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen