scientific double blinded cable test

Randi’s testing regimen was looked at by people who design scientific testing regimens.

It was found to be so badly built, that if it was applied in real science and real proofing procedures, that ... not one single drug or substance would ever be made available to humanity---- as all being tested would fail. All.

The test was not even remotely properly built. That’s what you find when you look under the hood of the challenge. Surprise!

It’s all this looking at the surface of things, combined with accepting the first answer, or deciding on the first formulated question, etc....such is the mindset that dooms the average person from ever reaching satisfaction in understanding the world.

’Good enough’ does not apply in researching any aspect of advanced understandings which might go beyond the common and mundane.

As for any $25k challenge: it would only apply to two people: those two who are involved. Outside of that, it would be a waste of time and money.

Interesting. Got a link?

Here's a 1 cent challenge for all of you. Point to one business / professional area (science, communications, pro audio, IT, cryptology, military, medicine, power, space exploration, aviation, etc)  where cable directionality is a technical standard. Link that standard, please.

Big deal. No one ever suggested there was a standard for directionality. Recall directionality is sound related only. Duh! There are no technical standards for Polarity, for soundstage, for realism, for room acoustics, for speaker placement, for vibration, for RFI/EMI, for Noise, for Distortion, frequency response, dynamic range. Yet somehow we are able to find our way. Well, sometimes...fortunately, directionality is often the easiest to get to the bottom of. All you have to do is reverse the cable or fuse, whatever. Fortunately some companies control directionality, even for power cords making it pretty much a no brainer. No comment.  I wouldn’t hold my breath for a MIL STD for directionality any time real soon. 😡

@nugat

It’s not a concern for their particular forms of use.


@Geoff

As for Randi’s lack of validity, that is easy to find on the interwebs. I cannot immediately find the web link for the ’scientific regimen’ test designing dude’s report on Randi’s test, but here’s quite the bit of damning evidence in just one article out of what is likely to be more than a few.

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/randis-million-dollar-challenge/