ISF Logo   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

Closed Thread
Old 13th November 2013, 10:06 AM   #361
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Michel,

What would be the credibility rating of the following post, assuming that was the entirety of the post?

Quote:
I don't know.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:20 AM   #362
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
Michel,

What would be the credibility rating of the following post, assuming that was the entirety of the post?
Quote:
I don't know.
In your example, the answerer gives very little information. But you may notice that kid meatball gave "much more" (sic) information, in this test:
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
I don't get what this test is supposed to find. Are you testing to see if anybody who responds is telepathic, or is this a test of your own ability to project some sort of vision to potential telepaths?

My answer is I don't know.
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 Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:25 AM   #363
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In your example, the answerer gives very little information. But you may notice that kid meatball gave "much more" (sic) information, in this test:
I'm not asking about Kid Meatball. I'm asking you what the credibility score would be for the following post.

Quote:
I don't know.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:38 AM   #364
Spektator
Dog Who Laughs
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,570
On subjective re-evaluation of the numbers after the guesses and the numbers are known: Here’s an analogy.

The town of Dry Gulch is looking for a new sheriff. One qualification is that the successful applicant must be able to put six bullets within a ten-inch bull’s-eye target from fifty yards away. The town council watches as each applicant tries his luck, and the first three fail.

They then observe the fourth applicant. With his six-shooter the fourth applicant takes aim at a blank wall from fifty yards away, empties his revolver, re-loads it, fires again until his revolver is empty, and then repeats the process four more times.

The applicant then looks at the wall and out of the 36 bullet holes, he finds six that are within ten inches of each other. He draws a target around these six.

Now: Does he get the job?
Spektator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:39 AM   #365
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
I'm not asking about Kid Meatball. I'm asking you what the credibility score would be for the following post.
I will go into a trance and seek the answer.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:40 AM   #366
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
I'm not asking about Kid Meatball. I'm asking you what the credibility score would be for the following post.
Quote:
I don't know.
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.
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 Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:49 AM   #367
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
My first name is Michel, not Michal, Dan.
Sorry, that was quite unintentional. My spell checker keeps wanting to say Michael and I have to remove the extra vowel somewhere I started removing the wrong one.


Quote:
When I saw that Hokulele had answered:

, I was concerned because "2" was the first number in my opening post:
, and also the "target" of this test. But the number she had chosen to answer was actually a "1", not a "2".
This is a generic problem with using numbers since they show up in many other contexts. Are numbers necessary for you or would abstract symbols work as well?


Quote:
It is true that the text participants write should never give away their number. They should not write e.g. :
My answer is xx, a square has xx equal sides.
But that's fairly obvious, I think. It is possible that Hokulele actually never intended to allude to the first "2" in my opening post.

People are notoriously bad at picking random numbers. I've always wanted to write the psi test that used predictive analysis to guess the applicant's next guess so as to inflate their score

The link between a statement and the number could be subconscious. The subject would not have to consciously try. Its like word assocation. The only way to avoid there being any link would be for them to create a statement, erase their first number and substitute a truly random number generated by flipping coins or rolling dice or such.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:52 AM   #368
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.
The credibility ratings are your own fantasy and nothing to do with science.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:56 AM   #369
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.

If the credibility rating was like a wager that their number was correct, a CR of 0 (zero) would be the equivalent of no wager and the trial would not show in the resulting win/loss score.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:58 AM   #370
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
If the credibility rating was like a wager that their number was correct, a CR of 0 (zero) would be the equivalent of no wager and the trial would not show in the resulting win/loss score.
Didn't you notice the ''seems credible to me'' in his post? You seem to be agreeing with his method of throwing out the results that do not fit his illusion.

Last edited by dafydd; 13th November 2013 at 10:59 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:03 AM   #371
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
The credibility ratings are your own fantasy and nothing to do with science.
That's a rather strong statement, dafydd. Are you sure you are the person who can decide what is scientific, and what is not?
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 Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:05 AM   #372
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
That's a rather strong statement, dafydd. Are you sure you are the person who can decide what is scientific, and what is not?
No, I am the persdon who says that you cannot judge how credible a person is by looking at a few typed lines on the net. To claim that you can do this is absurd and unscientific.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:22 AM   #373
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
That's a hypothetical question. Actually, I usually don't give credibility ratings to people who answer "I don't know". I may, however study the answer (if there is something to study), and say whether it seems credible to me, or not.
So what exactly could a person who is not hearing a number from your telepathy say that would get a high credibility rating and be included in your final analysis?
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:25 AM   #374
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
That's a rather strong statement, dafydd. Are you sure you are the person who can decide what is scientific, and what is not?
You, yourself, have admitted there are no protocols for your credibility system. That makes it unrepeatable, and therefore unscientific.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:26 AM   #375
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Not, not necessarily a clear miss, because the answer may not be credible, and the person may have lied.
The hit rate corresponding to chance alone (no telepathy) should be equal to 25%, in a four-possibility test, and should not depend upon the number of people who answered "I don't know". You can then assess how (un)successful you have been by comparing your hit rate to 25%, you can no longer do that if you put the {I don't know}s in your hit rate.
If you can communicate, "I don't know" means no communication happened, so it would be a miss as far as demonstrating communication is concerned.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:31 AM   #376
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
If you can communicate, "I don't know" means no communication happened, so it would be a miss as far as demonstrating communication is concerned.
And if the person actually heard the transmitted number in their head and decided to lie about it? We are about as far from science as we can get.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:36 AM   #377
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Of course, all of these issues would be moot if Michel would just start with a large set of possible numbers. Right now he is claiming that about 100% of participants hear his number, and 25% of those report it honestly. If we start with a range of numbers that is sufficiently large, like 1 to 1,000,000,000, and 25% of participants get it right, no one would be care about the issues caused by his credibility scores or the fact he omits people who say they "don't know".
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:41 AM   #378
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
That's a rather strong statement, dafydd. Are you sure you are the person who can decide what is scientific, and what is not?
That's the beauty of science, anyone with a small amount of knowledge of the scientific method can.
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:41 AM   #379
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
Of course, all of these issues would be moot if Michel would just start with a large set of possible numbers. Right now he is claiming that about 100% of participants hear his number, and 25% of those report it honestly. If we start with a range of numbers that is sufficiently large, like 1 to 1,000,000,000, and 25% of participants get it right, no one would be care about the issues caused by his credibility scores or the fact he omits people who say they "don't know".
He comes here with a claim that he is telepathic, we ask him for proof and part of the proof is that he claims that he is telepathic. There's flaw there. Surely a scientist would spot it.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:43 AM   #380
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
That's the beauty of science, anyone with a small amount of knowledge of the scientific method can.
If I was claiming to be telepathic I would test it with a friend and a pack of cards and I would soon discover that I got it right one out of fifty-two times.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 11:54 AM   #381
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
He comes here with a claim that he is telepathic, we ask him for proof and part of the proof is that he claims that he is telepathic. There's flaw there. Surely a scientist would spot it.
Indeed. By his own admission, he does not consider results from people who report not getting a telepathic message from him. His test is not what he claims it is. He starts with the following assumptions.

1) Everyone gets a telepathic message from him.
2) Honest people report his number accurately.
3) Dishonest people report his number inaccurately.

And then he uses his credibility system, which compares people's answers to his number and declares them honest or dishonest. His test does not measure his telepathic ability. It attempts to measure other people's honesty. And SURPRISE! People are honest in the ration 1/n where n is the number of possible answers in his test.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 12:31 PM   #382
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
If you can communicate, "I don't know" means no communication happened, so it would be a miss as far as demonstrating communication is concerned.
You might want to take a look at this Glossary of Parapsychology, where the terms "hit" and "miss" are defined. And I don't think I need to recalculate my "hit rates", to somehow include "I don't know" answers.

Last edited by Michel H; 13th November 2013 at 02:29 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 Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 01:03 PM   #383
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
You might want to take a look at this Glossary of Parapsychology, where the terms "hit" and "miss" are defined. And I don't think I need to recalculate my "hit rates" to somehow include "I don't know" answers.
You begin by assuming that you are telepathic, that is not scientific. Your test was a joke from start to finish. You assume that we all recieved your transmitted number. Divest yourself of this delusion.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 01:11 PM   #384
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Michal,

Please answer.

Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
So what exactly could a person who is not hearing a number from your telepathy say that would get a high credibility rating and be included in your final analysis?
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:04 PM   #385
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Quote:
Miss
A mismatch between the target and response
The target was a particular number. No number was received. No match, therefore miss, by your definition.
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:16 PM   #386
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
The target was a particular number. No number was received. No match, therefore miss, by your definition.
It is important to note here that "I don't know" is a response. It is different than a participant not answering.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:23 PM   #387
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:28 PM   #388
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation.
I'll stop you right there. There is no need for an analogy when we can talk about this test directly. Michel is claiming to be able to send thoughts into other people's heads. If we want to test this claim, we have to accept results where he has failed to send thoughts into another person's head.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:30 PM   #389
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?
Ignoring the cheap insult, what does that have to do with Michael assuming that we can hear his thoughts and his ignoring the misses? Answer, sod all.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:37 PM   #390
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Dan O, do you actually believe that Michael can broadcast his thoughts to others?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:38 PM   #391
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?

In your analogy, the bettor, the analogized receiver, chooses not to play. An answer of, "I don't know" is choosing to play. Your analogy works only for those who read the OP and didn't make any answer at all.

In my defense, he wanted an honest answer. Had I answered one of the four numbers, I would have lied, and therefore caused his numbers to go out of whack.

Last edited by kid meatball; 13th November 2013 at 03:39 PM. Reason: change on to for because of sense
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:40 PM   #392
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,895
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?
Sure, except the "I don't know" folks are betting on the joker, or the bridge rules cards coming up in your analogy. The only ones not placing a bet are non-respondents who provide no answer at all.

The "I don't know" answers are equally valid, as they reflect a failure of the transmitter to transmit anything at all. If you wish to exclude such, then we can simply take Michel's criteria and extend them just a little to eliminate all but the two "correct" answers and proceed to claim a 100% success rate. The only reason this was not done by Michel is that he knew full well that there would be an avalanche to fall upon him, so he carefully did not eliminate all confounding answers in an attempt to shore up a failed test. It's a pretty cynical practice to engage with.

ETA: Quadruple ninjad. LOL.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 13th November 2013 at 03:42 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:56 PM   #393
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
I'll stop you right there. There is no need for an analogy when we can talk about this test directly. Michel is claiming to be able to send thoughts into other people's heads. If we want to test this claim, we have to accept results where he has failed to send thoughts into another person's head.

If you want to test his claim you need to listen to preciesly what his claim is. You cannot test your interpretation of his claim and pretend that has any relevance.

His claim requires an evaluation to the receiver's credibility. If you strip that out you are altering the claim so you might as well just hand him a pair of dowsing rods.

Last edited by Dan O.; 13th November 2013 at 04:06 PM.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:01 PM   #394
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,895
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
If you want to test his claim you need to listen to preciesly what his claim is. You cannot test your interpretation of his claim and pretend that has any significance.

His claim requires an evaluation to the receiver's credibility. If you strip that out you are altering the claim so you might as well just hand him a pair of dowsing rods.
And a Ouija board, and some Tarot cards, and some crystal balls.

Michel's claim now has become that everyone receives the correct answer, but if you report a different answer, you are therefore lying about the answer you really received.

Science, how does that work?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:02 PM   #395
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Dan O, do you actually believe that Michael can broadcast his thoughts to others?

It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters that I am willing to let his claim be tested.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:11 PM   #396
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,895
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters that I am willing to let his claim be tested.
Yet unwilling to allow a valid test.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:17 PM   #397
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
If you want to test his claim you need to listen to preciesly what his claim is. You cannot test your interpretation of his claim and pretend that has any relevance.

His claim requires an evaluation to the receiver's credibility. If you strip that out you are altering the claim so you might as well just hand him a pair of dowsing rods.
So? He can test the credibility of an "I don't know" answer.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:18 PM   #398
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters that I am willing to let his claim be tested.
You are confusing "testing the claim" and "accepting the protocol". I don't see anyone here trying to stop the claim from being tested.
TheSapient is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:45 PM   #399
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Yet unwilling to allow a valid test.

Point to the valid test and where I was unwilling to allow it.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:54 PM   #400
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,895
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Point to the valid test and where I was unwilling to allow it.
It's only six posts back where you claimed it was quite legitimate for Michel to reject results he didn't like. This post. So sure, I can chop up some coathangers and throw science out the window and make up whatever I like. This seems to be your preferred scientific method.

Would you like more quotes? Because you posted 'em.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 01:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.