IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags telepathy , telepathy test

Reply
Old 26th November 2021, 03:54 PM   #2281
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,828
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
... there isn't much you could say about his answer:

.



Your rejection of this answer is simply a reflection of your current prejudices...
I can say it was obviously a joke. The truth is "prejudices" are rather the point. Your protocol is not science. It's barely a parody of science. There is no hope of its producing objective, reproducible results.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 04:05 PM   #2282
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Loss Leader did not violate the protocol of my test.
No, you did.



Quote:
Your rejection of this answer is simply a reflection of your current prejudices and preconceived ideas, and this is not something I can accept as an argument.
I'm not rejecting anything Loss Leader said. I'm rejecting YOUR judgment and rationale for including it as a credible hit. Do you understand the difference between commentary on Loss Leader's behavior and commentary on your behavior? It's your judgment people are questioning. The way you phrased it in your protocol was that a decision could be challenged if people didn't like the way YOU decided. That's what's being done here, and you reject the challenge, once again, on purely subjective criteria. That's cheating if the challenge is meant to reduce the effect of subjectivity on your data.

It doesn't matter what excuse you give for overruling outside review of your judgment. The participants and observers are unanimous in their opposition to your judgment and have provided well-considered reasons for their objection. If you're just going to ignore all of it, assume they're all biased or lying, and reassert your original ruling because of the reasons you think they acted rather than upon their stated criteria, then there is no meaningful cure in your protocol for its obvious subjectivity. Regardless of your excuse, your protocol is therefore irreproducible.

No scientist will accept your protocol as an nonbiased method of collecting data.

Last edited by JayUtah; 26th November 2021 at 04:20 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 04:13 PM   #2283
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, you did.





It doesn't matter what excuse you give for overruling outside review of your judgment. The participants and observers are unanimous in their opposition to your judgment and have provided well-considered reasons for their objection. If you're just going to ignore all of it, assume they're all biased or lying, and reassert your original ruling, then there is no meaningful cure in your protocol for its obvious subjectivity. Regardless of your excuse, your protocol is therefore irreproducible.
Loss Leader can't respond. This is a particularly scummy move by Michel.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 04:22 PM   #2284
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,828
One of the more pitiful aspects here is the efforts Michel is expending to defend one solitary data point.

Nobody has ever produced significant evidence for telepathy so even if you think such phenomena might exist they are undoubtedly so weak that you could only hope to detect their existence by sifting a mountain of objective data.

Michel only has a handful of worthless subjective results.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 04:44 PM   #2285
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Loss Leader can't respond. This is a particularly scummy move by Michel.
Which is why I've called Michel out on having progressed from biased to just downright offensive. But it's all part of the game. Harping on the contribution of a well-beloved but lamentedly-departed member lets him write off objections to his abuse as emotional defensiveness rather than well-reasoned analysis.

I speak from experience when I say that schizophrenics are unwilling experts at emotional manipulation. The poor relative we hosted for a summer wreaked irreparable damage on my family and circle of friends. She's getting the help she needs. But the pain of living in the periphery of profound mental illness is real.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 05:09 PM   #2286
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
One of the more pitiful aspects here is the efforts Michel is expending to defend one solitary data point.
It's not just a data point. It's a data point Michel thinks we can't argue with because it comes from such an eminent and well-respected source. It's not a numerical victory he seeks; it's a moral victory. Despite his assurance that he will allow his judgment to be questioned, Michel is trying to make the case that any opposition to that judgment must be from prejudice and bias, because who could argue on defensible evidentiary grounds with the "obviously" confirmatory evidence provided by Loss Leader.

Quote:
Nobody has ever produced significant evidence for telepathy so even if you think such phenomena might exist they are undoubtedly so weak that you could only hope to detect their existence by sifting a mountain of objective data.
Which is why it's imperative that he support his claim that thoughts are projected as electromagnetic radiation in the 20-watt range at common radio frequencies. That would make every brain so endowed roughly on par with the radios we put on airliners and spaceships. Very hard to miss.

Quote:
Michel only has a handful of worthless subjective results.
In a paragon of tautological hubris, he has declared that even if his raw result fails to achieve statistical significance, he can reliably determine which are true misses and which are insincere misses that should be omitted or "corrected" as hits. This, even when he can't articulate the criteria that apply: he just knows. And it only works when he is the judge, and only when the data are unblinded. Because he has blatantly defined "good" data as only that which confirms his predetermined conclusion. And, without knowing the field or having previously published in it, he declares that this is a far better method than any of the previous practitioners have managed.

And this is supposed to improve the reputation of parapsychology among actual scientists.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 05:22 PM   #2287
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Which is why I've called Michel out on having progressed from biased to just downright offensive. But it's all part of the game. Harping on the contribution of a well-beloved but lamentedly-departed member lets him write off objections to his abuse as emotional defensiveness rather than well-reasoned analysis.
Well, TBH I can be more frank here then I could in a real life encounter. This place lets me let off a little steam. One cannot do that in a real world situation. Michel is para-schiz and off meds and not seeing professionals. We know this because he has told us. We are not making this up out of whole cloth somehow. Pretty much everyone is concerned about his situation and wants him to seek professional help. He will have none of it. His reasons are his own, I guess.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I speak from experience when I say that schizophrenics are unwilling experts at emotional manipulation. The poor relative we hosted for a summer wreaked irreparable damage on my family and circle of friends. She's getting the help she needs. But the pain of living in the periphery of profound mental illness is real.
Yeah. It ain't a happy place, is it? One sort of weirdly inherits it. If one were to be strictly logical about it, one would say that "It's not my problem, go away". I cannot imagine saying such to any family or friend or whatever. But sadly it happens. I have had kids on the phone from a call box because they have been ejected from their home because they are trans, or gay, or don't believe the religion du jour or whatever. It's heartbreaking. But people do this all the time without a care.

I do believe that I previously told you that I would happily place my kids in your care if some mad need arised. That remains true ish. My eldest is 19, so I have a mere advisory role at this point.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 06:11 PM   #2288
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 8,721
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Loss Leader can't respond. This is a particularly scummy move by Michel.
IMO, it's even worse as Michel keeps posting an edited version of LL's last, longer post, where IIRC, he was mildly insulting Michel with a "back-handed compliment". This was obvious to native English speakers.

In other words... LL was STILL "takin' the piss".
But Michel keeps ignoring that.

MICHEL... if as you claim, you have many, many other supporting comments and correct responses, than LL's single judged response should be statistically irrelevant.
We would all truly appreciate if you would simply toss it, never to be referenced again. You know this, we've said this... why won't you do this?
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

Last edited by Jim_MDP; 26th November 2021 at 06:22 PM.
Jim_MDP is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 06:42 PM   #2289
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
IMO, it's even worse as Michel keeps posting an edited version of LL's last, longer post, where IIRC, he was mildly insulting Michel with a "back-handed compliment". This was obvious to native English speakers.

In other words... LL was STILL "takin' the piss".
But Michel keeps ignoring that.

MICHEL... if as you claim, you have many, many other supporting comments and correct responses, than LL's single judged response should be statistically irrelevant.
We would all truly appreciate if you would simply toss it, never to be referenced again. You know this, we've said this... why won't you do this?
Oh Michel is taking a massive dump on the grave of LL. I take exception to that. This disrespect is beyond the pale.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 10:34 PM   #2290
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,286
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If you legitimately think Loss Leader's answer wasn't credible, you have a right to present arguments which really show that his answer shouldn't be considered as serious and reliable (this is actually part of my method, it's a security feature).
Here, once again, is the post Loss Leader made when he realised to his horror you were taking his sarcastic answer seriously:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post10438878

Quote:
No, I was not serious. I was joking. This was before I realized how ill you were. I never would have posted if I knew the state of your health. I am very, very sorry for any role I played in aiding your delusion.

I had just written the number 4. I typed it right ther between "a" and "very." When I said it was like I had written it myself, I meant to refer to the fact that I had just written it myself.

That's sarcasm. It was a joke based on the word "seeing." I did see a 4 in that I was staring at it on my computer screen. I did not see it in my mind and choose to type it. I typed it quite randomly and then joked about having typed it.
A better argument that his answer shouldn't be considered as serious and reliable would be difficult to imagine. The fact that he later reverted to piss taking is regrettable, but you can't pretend that his answer passes your "security feature" when literally everybody else, including the person who posted it, disagrees with your credibility rating for it. Well you obviously can pretend that, because your illness forces you to, but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 10:41 PM   #2291
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,198
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Here, once again, is the post Loss Leader made when he realised to his horror you were taking his sarcastic answer seriously:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post10438878



A better argument that his answer shouldn't be considered as serious and reliable would be difficult to imagine. The fact that he later reverted to piss taking is regrettable, but you can't pretend that his answer passes your "security feature" when literally everybody else, including the person who posted it, disagrees with your credibility rating for it. Well you obviously can pretend that, because your illness forces you to, but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Normally, I would be right up there with the mockery of cranks. But Michel is seriously ill and mockery would be a bad move.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 10:24 AM   #2292
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Normally, I would be right up there with the mockery of cranks. But Michel is seriously ill and mockery would be a bad move.
It's clear Michel needs to come to grips with his condition. But it's not necessarily the case that all objectionable claims are the product of illness. Selectively quoting source material can also be a conscious decision, aside from illness. It's possible to be both schizophrenic and a jerk.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 05:24 PM   #2293
jmontecillo01
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 261
I am posting this in the hope that Michel understand what he is going.

Originally Posted by JayUtah
It's clear Michel needs to come to grips with his condition. But it's not necessarily the case that all objectionable claims are the product of illness. Selectively quoting source material can also be a conscious decision, aside from illness. It's possible to be both schizophrenic and a jerk.
You might be right. Michel, at the same time is just being a jerk. But, there is another problem with dealing with schizoprenia, reading comprehension.

Quote:
People with schizophrenia are likely to have severely impaired reading ability, a new study has shown.

A systematic review by researchers at Brunel University London's Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience (CCN) found that those who have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia are likely to have difficulty recognizing, manipulating and pronouncing individual sounds, and understanding written text.

The findings indicate that there could be significant overlap between the underlying causes of schizophrenia and the underlying causes of dyslexia, although the researchers say there are multiple factors that need to be taken into consideration.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-...zophrenia.html

Interpretion of words seen, depends on type of delusion. I still remember when I thought I was god's spokesman. Everthing I see seems to come from god. Say, I see the sign "Please keep our park clean. By order by park manager". I would interpret park manager as god and park is our planet (earth). There is failure 'to see' the other words, and in Michel's case, failure to detect sarcasm.

Michel,

Just assuming thought broadcasting is real.

There is no way you can prevent thoughts entering your head, therefore the idea of selective broadcasting is not possible. You cannot just turn off/on your thoughts. That means you are broadcasting your thoughts, 24/7.

You cannot have privacy with your thoughts. You'll be telling the world everything from taking a dump, through farting, trough locking your self in your bedroom with only a playboy magazine for company.

Do you now understand that when I was suffering from thought broadcasting, I would hit my head againts the wall to get rid of the thoughts?

Michel, beware of what you wish for, you might just get it.
jmontecillo01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2021, 05:52 PM   #2294
LongFuzzy
Critical Thinker
 
LongFuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 322
Of course if telepathy were real, we would have to host a Disaster Area concert.
LongFuzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 03:19 PM   #2295
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by jmontecillo01 View Post
Michel,

Just assuming thought broadcasting is real.

There is no way you can prevent thoughts entering your head, therefore the idea of selective broadcasting is not possible. You cannot just turn off/on your thoughts. That means you are broadcasting your thoughts, 24/7.

You cannot have privacy with your thoughts. You'll be telling the world everything from taking a dump, through farting, trough locking your self in your bedroom with only a playboy magazine for company.

Do you now understand that when I was suffering from thought broadcasting, I would hit my head againts the wall to get rid of the thoughts?

Michel, beware of what you wish for, you might just get it.
I am not much concerned about these things.

But I have to say I am still a little embarrassed by one thing: thinking about the genital parts of the person I am talking to (male or female).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 03:38 PM   #2296
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
MICHEL... if as you claim, you have many, many other supporting comments and correct responses, than LL's single judged response should be statistically irrelevant.
We would all truly appreciate if you would simply toss it, never to be referenced again. You know this, we've said this... why won't you do this?
Loss Leader's correct answer to my second test:
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
,
the seriousness of which he confirmed later:
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of. You did not feel aggressively towards me back then so your thoughts were very easy to read and you did not change your answer when you knew I was right. ...
(after having denied for a while that his answer had been valuable) is still of great importance and of great interest to me, because it was made by a respected moderator on the prestigious forum of the Randi Educational Foundation (one can perhaps hope that it was truly educational).

I assume these posts reflect a high moral stature by this particular mod (even though we have seen that he wasn't always consistent in his comments).

I have noticed everybody in this thread has shown respect and appreciation for Loss Leader (I wouldn't say the same has been true for me).

I am not going to ditch a valuable testimony, consistent with several others, just because it is not to the liking of some skeptics.

Last edited by Michel H; 1st December 2021 at 04:23 PM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 04:02 PM   #2297
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,066
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Loss Leader's correct answer to my second test:
,
the seriousness of which he confirmed later:

(after having denied for a while that his answer had been valuable) is still of great importance and of great interest to me, because it was made by a respected moderator on the prestigious forum of the Randi Educational Foundation (one can perhaps hope that it was truly educational).

I assume these posts reflect a high moral stature by this particular mod (even though we have seen that he wasn't always consistent in his comments).

I have noticed everybody in this thread has shown respect and appreciation for Loss Leader (I wouldn't say the same has been true for me).

I am not going to ditch a valuable testimony, consistent with several others, just because it is not the the liking of some skeptics.
That wooshing noise was Loss Leader's sarcasm going over your head. Not that it matters. You sucked and had to cheat to show any effect. Unfortunately your cheating is comically obvious to all. That is why no one takes you seriously. You are pissing on logic. You don't deserve respect.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 04:54 PM   #2298
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,051
Originally Posted by jmontecillo01 View Post
You cannot have privacy with your thoughts.
Logically, Michel H is complimenting everyone on Earth for their honesty.

Despite his claim he is broadcasting his bank, bank account number and PIN number, no one has ever cleared his bank accounts.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 05:46 PM   #2299
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
(after having denied for a while that his answer had been valuable) is still of great importance and of great interest to me, because it was made by a respected moderator on the prestigious forum of the Randi Educational Foundation (one can perhaps hope that it was truly educational).
The problem is that observers of your experiment note that the contributions of the "respected moderator" are ambiguous at best. At worst, Loss Leader did not realize that you had failed to note his sarcasm. The observation is that the data point should be discarded on the basis of ambiguous intent, according to your protocol. But you accept it, not because it is reliable data by the criteria you established, but solely because it is a hit. By accepting it despite its obvious unreliability, you convey that your bias governs your decision, not your judgment. This is why no one takes you seriously.

Quote:
I assume these posts reflect a high moral stature by this particular mod (even though we have seen that he wasn't always consistent in his comments).
"Moral stature" is irrelevant. By your criteria, the data point is ambiguous and should be rejected. You have subjectively chosen to resolve in your favor the inconsistency you see in his posts because you know that by doing so you will get one more hit. More astute observers note that the "inconsistency" is a product of your inability to recognize sarcasm. Those who understand sarcasm see no problem in understanding which of Loss Leader's contributions was most sincerely intended.

Quote:
I have noticed everybody in this thread has shown respect and appreciation for Loss Leader (I wouldn't say the same has been true for me).
Loss Leader earned the respect he was given by long years of treating others with respect, both as a judicious moderator and as a gracious poster. You have not, for the reasons amply described. Your behavior is not worthy of respect, as you fail to treat anyone else with respect and you actively insult those who are trying to help you achieve scientific rigor.

Quote:
I am not going to ditch a valuable testimony, consistent with several others, just because it is not to the liking of some skeptics.
Your protocol requires that your decisions regarding data reliability be subject to challenge. Your decision has been challenged, and appropriate grounds for the challenge have been given. There is unanimous agreement among the participants and observers that you are not interpreting Loss Leader's contributions appropriately. You have simply overruled the judgment of the experiment participants and observers, once again on subjective grounds. This means your protocol is worthless in the methods it uses to mitigate the effect of subjective judgment and bias.

If you never had any intention of respecting the judgment of others here at the forum, then you have been in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, for years.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 06:39 PM   #2300
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The problem is that observers of your experiment note that the contributions of the "respected moderator" are ambiguous at best. At worst, Loss Leader did not realize that you had failed to note his sarcasm. The observation is that the data point should be discarded on the basis of ambiguous intent, according to your protocol. But you accept it, not because it is reliable data by the criteria you established, but solely because it is a hit. By accepting it despite its obvious unreliability, you convey that your bias governs your decision, not your judgment. This is why no one takes you seriously.



"Moral stature" is irrelevant. By your criteria, the data point is ambiguous and should be rejected. You have subjectively chosen to resolve in your favor the inconsistency you see in his posts because you know that by doing so you will get one more hit. More astute observers note that the "inconsistency" is a product of your inability to recognize sarcasm. Those who understand sarcasm see no problem in understanding which of Loss Leader's contributions was most sincerely intended.



Loss Leader earned the respect he was given by long years of treating others with respect, both as a judicious moderator and as a gracious poster. You have not, for the reasons amply described. Your behavior is not worthy of respect, as you fail to treat anyone else with respect and you actively insult those who are trying to help you achieve scientific rigor.



Your protocol requires that your decisions regarding data reliability be subject to challenge. Your decision has been challenged, and appropriate grounds for the challenge have been given. There is unanimous agreement among the participants and observers that you are not interpreting Loss Leader's contributions appropriately. You have simply overruled the judgment of the experiment participants and observers, once again on subjective grounds. This means your protocol is worthless in the methods it uses to mitigate the effect of subjective judgment and bias.

If you never had any intention of respecting the judgment of others here at the forum, then you have been in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, for years.
Members of this forum are still welcome to object to my analyses when there are serious grounds to object (yes, this is still part of my method). There must, however, be valid reasons in order to make me alter my conclusions.

The argument "of the crowd" ("What?? At least 10 people have told you they disagreed with you, and you keep on believing your conclusions are right!!!) is not sufficient.

When I assigned my credibility to Loss Leader's answer back in 2013 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...55#post9516155), I used the information which was available to me then (I usually, as a rule, assign credibilities for an answer given at time T using the information available at time T, not in a retrospective way, using what is said later by people perhaps angry and worried because they feel they have said too much).

Then, when the test was completed (and knowing the test was over), Loss Leader expressed for a while (not surprisingly) the skeptical view that his answer had just been random.

However, he later clarified that:
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of. You did not feel aggressively towards me back then so your thoughts were very easy to read and you did not change your answer when you knew I was right. ...
So, I feel that I have been faithful and respectful with respect to his legacy.

You might also notice incidentally that using data which are a little bit imperfect is a hallmark of serious science. Real cheaters might provide fake data which are too good to be true, like perhaps some propaganda by some "Communist Party".

It seems clear to me that many members of this forum are not objective, in the sense that they often exclusively and desperately want to defend the narrow-minded skeptical viewpoint, in spite of the obvious evidence (which is rarely cited by them).

This is a real problem. So, perhaps you need to adopt a more relaxed and neutral attitude, not like someone who is upset, scared by the idea that his sad skeptical boat might imminently sink.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2021, 07:04 PM   #2301
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Members of this forum are still welcome to object to my analyses when there are serious grounds to object...
There were grounds in this case. You have no argument against them except to assert without further argument that they are insufficient.

Quote:
There must, however, be valid reasons in order to make me alter my conclusions.
If you retain final judgment regarding whether challenges are valid, then it does not serve as any sort of check on your subjectivity. Since your subjective judgment is paramount, your method is irreproducible and therefore not scientific.

Quote:
The argument "of the crowd" ("What?? At least 10 people have told you they disagreed with you, and you keep on believing your conclusions are right!!!) is not sufficient.
If the unanimous conclusion of the relevant observers is "not sufficient," then it is beyond anyone's guess what would be.

Quote:
So, I feel that I have been faithful and respectful with respect to his legacy.
No. Your assessment of his data has nothing to do with his "legacy" or reverence for his memory. You wanted the hit, so you resolved the ambiguity in his responses in your favor in contravention of your own rules.

Quote:
You might also notice incidentally that using data which are a little bit imperfect is a hallmark of serious science.
You are not any sort of authority on this kind of science. It is clear you have no idea how to collect reliable, unbiased data according to its best practices. Your protocol is indistinguishable from cheating, and you have revealed that your goal is to maximize the number of hits, thereby confirming that cheating -- not some novel data-cleaning method -- is your true goal. You were shown protocols that prevented you from cheating. When they were applied, your claimed ability vanished entirely, which has caused you emotional distress.

Quote:
It seems clear to me that many members of this forum are not objective, in the sense that they often exclusively and desperately want to defend the narrow-minded skeptical viewpoint, in spite of the obvious evidence (which is rarely cited by them).
No, calling your critics names is not the solution to your problem. The only "obvious" evidence you've provided is for your need to cheat in order to get data you will find acceptable. Your critics have patiently and repeatedly explained the reasons why your protocol and method are not scientifically acceptable. You fail to address them, and instead rely solely on calling your critics unfair and biased.

Quote:
This is a real problem. So, perhaps you need to adopt a more relaxed and neutral attitude, not like someone who is upset, scared by the idea that his sad skeptical boat might imminently sink.
No. The real problem is not my unwillingness to "relax." No, I'm not "upset" or "scared." No, I'm not desperately bailing some "sad skeptical boat." You've devolved into emotionally-laden fantasy rather than address the actual reasons given why your experiment has no scientific worth.

The real problem is your blatant declaration that the only data you will accept as valid are those that confirm your desired conclusion. There is no recovery from that. You said the quiet part loud. Methodology aside, your criteria for "good" data are all that's needed to conclude that you have no intention of adhering to scientific best practices. You're looking for pseudoscientific confirmation of your claimed telepathic abilities. This forum will not help you obtain it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 03:46 AM   #2302
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
If you retain final judgment regarding whether challenges are valid, then it does not serve as any sort of check on your subjectivity. Since your subjective judgment is paramount, your method is irreproducible and therefore not scientific.
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest, but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, where I regularly observe criminal tendencies (personal opinion).

So I think it should be up to me to decide whether I decide to revise my conclusions or not after you have posted your objections (it is always possible).

Your own personal final judgment (after reading the various arguments) always belongs to you, and to you alone (and this is of course true also for other members). You are always free to make up your mind independently.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 04:17 AM   #2303
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,349
Michel, you may have your own view in whether you are telepathic or not, but you can never claim that a survey where you decide on the credibility of respondents is neutral and unbiased.

In other words, what you have presented here and elsewhere is worthless from a scientific point of view.

If you want to produce an unbiased investigation, and still be able to remove insincere replies, you should remove yourself from those decisions. You could appoint someone who does not know the correct answer to vet the answers and present them, and only then will the correct answer be revealed.

A protocol like this would impress people here, even those with criminal tendencies.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 05:17 AM   #2304
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,828
Michel, in your personal opinion you are telepathic. In your experiments you use personal opinion to select results. That's not doing science, it's just expressing your opinion.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 05:23 AM   #2305
kali1137
Master Poster
 
kali1137's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Purgatory, PA
Posts: 2,117
I can assure you that none of us are scared of any possibilities. Honestly, and I think others here felt the same, when I began to realize that certain things I had believed in, like telepathy and psychic abilities, weren't true I was disappointed. I would love for these things to be proven. Your methods however are only making it look worse and less likely. The animosity you feel from us is not a doubt in the possibilities, it's your inability to listen and take in anything that is said to you. We are not all lying to you or out to get you. Why would we all lie just to prove you wrong? There is nothing to be gained by that. We are just fed up that you simply won't listen to anyone on anything. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything. I don't know if it is because of your illness or ego issues. Until you honestly listen to what others have to say and can admit mistakes, I don't think you will find anything of value here.

Last edited by kali1137; 2nd December 2021 at 05:27 AM. Reason: speeling is hard
kali1137 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 05:32 AM   #2306
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,049
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest, but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, where I regularly observe criminal tendencies (personal opinion).
I recommend everyone read this sentence and consider it carefully before continuing to engage with someone who believes them to be a lying criminal.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 05:46 AM   #2307
MarkCorrigan
¡No pasarán!
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK
Posts: 10,870
What criminal tendencies do you observe here?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 06:14 AM   #2308
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23,896
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I recommend everyone read this sentence and consider it carefully before continuing to engage with someone who believes them to be a lying criminal.

Dave
Right!

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 06:19 AM   #2309
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,066
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest, but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, ...
Your own personal final judgment (after reading the various arguments) always belongs to you, and to you alone (and this is of course true also for other members). You are always free to make up your mind independently.
Indeed.

You are free to decide if you are telepathic. Members here can make the same judgement. The issue is when you try to justify your option to others or ask others to accept your opinion my making a claim on a public forum.

You think you are telepathic, great. We don't but heigh ho let's go different ways and never discuss it again.

If however you do want to carry on discussing it or make new public claims then expect ridicule and hostility because that it what your claims deserve. They are in no-one's opionon apart from your own a reasonable demonstration of telepathy.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 07:09 AM   #2310
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
What criminal tendencies do you observe here?
See for example posts #2298 and #2211 (no justification).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 07:24 AM   #2311
junkshop
Muse
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Under the bed. Whose bed, you ask? That would be telling...sleep tight.
Posts: 635
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
What criminal tendencies do you observe here?
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
See for example posts #2298 and #2211 (no justification).
#2298:
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Logically, Michel H is complimenting everyone on Earth for their honesty.

Despite his claim he is broadcasting his bank, bank account number and PIN number, no one has ever cleared his bank accounts.
#2291:
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Normally, I would be right up there with the mockery of cranks. But Michel is seriously ill and mockery would be a bad move.

Michel, how are these posts examples of 'criminal tendencies?
__________________
Not a Cockney.
junkshop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 07:31 AM   #2312
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,828
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
See for example posts #2298 and #2211 (no justification).
Post #2298 does not exhibit any criminal tendency at all.

It merely notes an obvious security problem one would encounter if all ones thoughts were broadcast and makes a joking suggestion that you might be intending to complement the entire human race on their honesty since (it is assumed) nobody has used knowledge of your banking details to rob you.

Clearly in pointing this out it also draws attention to how very unlikely it is that you would not be robbed in such circumstances, since there are obviously a proportion of dishonest and criminal people in the world. The implication is that the world does not know your thoughts.

So, no, the post does not hint at any criminal tendency in the poster, only an ability to imagine themselves in a situation similar to what you imagine your own situation to be, and to perceive one of the problems this would cause.

As for post #2211 I can't see what criminality you imagine there. Perhaps you meant a different post.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 07:47 AM   #2313
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest...
But you conveniently define all the criticism you receive here as biased and dishonest, even if it isn't. So no one really believes you are interested in actual criticism. You've been provided with abundant evidence that your method is irreproducible and otherwise unscientific. But you dismiss all that evidence as the product of ill will without addressing its substance.

Quote:
...but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, where I regularly observe criminal tendencies (personal opinion).
Great, we're all criminals now. Way to double down on the hateful rhetoric. And you wonder why you get no respect!

You're absolutely right: whether you are telepathic or not should not be decided by a majority vote. It should be decided by a properly controlled, properly blinded experiment. We conducted one of those on your behalf, and it failed to prove your claim. So you reverted to the kind of experiment that lets you cherry-pick the data, and blatantly declared that the only outcome you will accept as valid is one that confirms your belief.

The provision in your protocol that allows review of your "credibility ratings" is ostensibly intended to eliminate the effects of your subjective bias in rendering judgment. It was your idea, not ours. So it's nobody's fault but yours that this part of your protocol too fails to give you what you want. You'll submit to review, but only from people sympathetic to your claim. That just kicks the can down the road a bit. Even less appropriate than a democratic vote on the validity of your data is a dictatorial fiat that only you can decide whether to accept or reject data, after seeing whether it helps or hinders your claim, with the stated goal of maximizing hits. You don't seem to grasp just how far from science you've wandered.

If you don't like how this skeptics forum receives you, then why stick around? It's clear that your participation here does nothing to further your goal of more general scientific acceptance of paranormal claims. You clearly have no respect for any of the people here, or for anything they say. So put your money where your mouth is: publish your claims in a reputable journal and show up your critics for the "criminals" you clearly think they are. But since it's been something like eight years that you've puttered around this and other forums, peddling your homegrown psychology, it's highly unlikely you will ever do that. Publishing your findings means you would have to endure the potential consequences of a rejection you can't subvert by impugning your critics. You're happy now with the ambiguity afforded by informal review, and your ability to bluster your way along indefinitely.

Quote:
So I think it should be up to me to decide whether I decide to revise my conclusions or not after you have posted your objections (it is always possible).
You can do whatever you want. But what you cannot do is insist that your method passes scientific muster. That is, and always has been, up to the judgment of others. Did you just up and decide that you should be granted a doctoral degree in physics? Or did you have to convince the faculty of the University of Minnesota that you deserved that honor? Did they grant your degree upon the basis of your begging and pleading? Or did you have to produce a parcel of original scientific inquiry into the behavior of light ions that stood up to scrutiny on its own?

Same rules apply here. You claim you want the notion of your "thought projection" to be more readily accepted by science. But you're utterly uninterested in what standards are required by the people whose approval you seek, and why they are required.

Quote:
Your own personal final judgment (after reading the various arguments) always belongs to you, and to you alone (and this is of course true also for other members). You are always free to make up your mind independently.
We have, and it seems to have upset you because we got what you think is the wrong answer.

Last edited by JayUtah; 2nd December 2021 at 08:18 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 07:49 AM   #2314
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
See for example posts #2298 and #2211 (no justification).
Specifically what laws were broken or about to be broken?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 08:08 AM   #2315
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,066
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Specifically what laws were broken or about to be broken?
Manslaughter. I bet there is at least one man's laugher at the crime idea.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 08:17 AM   #2316
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Manslaughter. I bet there is at least one man's laugher at the crime idea.
Dollars to donuts Michel doesn't get the joke.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 09:25 AM   #2317
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I recommend everyone read this sentence and consider it carefully before continuing to engage with someone who believes them to be a lying criminal.

Dave
I've been called worse. But yes, in this case there is ample reason to believe Michel literally believes this about his critics.

I'm not qualified to diagnose or treat mental illness. But I am qualified to determine the validity of scientific processes. So long as some semblance of a discussion is possible and meaningful along those lines, I might be interested.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 09:41 AM   #2318
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,049
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I've been called worse. But yes, in this case there is ample reason to believe Michel literally believes this about his critics.
Going a little further, Michel has said in the past that he is the victim of a criminal conspiracy to hide from him the reality that telepathy exists and is being used to torment him. So it's not just that he thinks people who disagree with his views on telepathy may be criminals; it's that he thinks that disagreeing with him is in itself being an accessory to a crime.

If you still believe that even a semblance of a meaningful discussion is possible under those circumstances, I think you're excessively optimistic.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 10:15 AM   #2319
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,446
My contribution to this thread has been predicated entirely on gushing amounts of irrational optimism. But for boredom, I would have backed away slowly while avoiding eye contact.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2021, 10:17 AM   #2320
Startz
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 639
I wonder if a different approach might be valuable.

It is an interesting question as to how to design a valid statistical experiment in which there is an issue about the credibility of the answers. (There has been at least a little discussion about this in the past.) As someone who doesn't do experimental design, I would be interested in learning how this might be done. If a design appeals to Michel, fine. If not, also fine.

As an initial suggestion, I think one could design a setup where both responses and any accompanying comments go to a third party. The third party then tosses a coin and either changes the specific response or leaves it as submitted, keeping track of which were changed. Everything then goes to the person who evaluates each response and who can decide which ones are credible. Those considered credible are then revealed to all. It ought to be possible to back out a valid statistic I would think.
Startz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.