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 9th November 2013, 02:18 AM   #201
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Generally speaking, I suspect many of the people here who claim to "represent Science" or to be "guardians of Science" actually have probably very little (if any) real experience of scientific research, and this is a problem, to be constantly taught lessons be people who clearly don't know much about science, but naively believe (perhaps) they know everything because they post on a "skeptical" forum (there have been some good remarks too). One important rule of actual scientific research is that it is necessary to be very careful (not "sloppy" or negligent.)

Michel, I have been very critical in this thread of your extremely sloppy (you used the word, ironically) testing. Perhaps you are criticizing my posts that are critical of your tests when talking about "people who clearly don't know much about science."

If so, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have a bachelor of science degree in biology (plus all the chemistry, physics, etc., required for pre-med). I know what science requires. And I can say that you demonstrate very little actual understanding of the scientific method, or even of basic probability theory to properly analyze your results.

So stop pretending that you know more than people who are actually knowledgeable about things you are posting about. That post was insulting.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 9th November 2013 at 03:25 AM.
AdMan 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 9th November 2013, 04:11 AM   #202
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,841
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The results of this test seem to support my telepathy hypothesis (in my opinion, at least),
Well frankly, your opinion is wrong. With a valid sample size of 3 (less than the number of choices available!), the results are valueless.

For the next experiment, toss three coins and claim that getting two or more heads (or tails) 'seems to support' the coin being biased that way.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

Last edited by dlorde; 9th November 2013 at 04:14 AM.
dlorde 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 9th November 2013, 04:58 AM   #203
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Michel, I have been very critical in this thread of your extremely sloppy (you used the word, ironically) testing. Perhaps you are criticizing my posts that are critical of your tests when talking about "people who clearly don't know much about science."

If so, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have a bachelor of science degree in biology (plus all the chemistry, physics, etc., required for pre-med). I know what science requires. And I can say that you demonstrate very little actual understanding of the scientific method, or even of basic probability theory to properly analyze your results.

So stop pretending that you know more than people who are actually knowledgeable about things you are posting about. That post was insulting.
Ah ok, so you have a bachelor of science degree in biology. That's pretty good (in view of your name, I was wondering if you had a master's degree in advertisement, something like that), although it's not a doctorate (Ph.D.). You may have never done scientific research in your life, and this might explain why you may have difficulty understanding what I am trying to do here. Generally speaking, everybody is welcome in my threads, but, if you disagree, or have (possibly serious) doubts, I think you should explain the reason for these (something you did not do in your posts #122 and #140, for example), in order to be constructive, to bring something useful in the thread. In this post, you brought a piece of information to the community (albeit in a rather aggressive fashion), so I think that's good.

Last edited by Michel H; 9th November 2013 at 05:32 AM.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 05:02 AM   #204
Tamlin
Scholar
 
Tamlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
You may have never done scientific research in your life, and this might explain why you may have difficulty understanding what I am trying to do here.

Have you ever done scientific research in your life, Michel?
Tamlin 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 9th November 2013, 05:13 AM   #205
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Emily Cat View Post
... If you had had only 2 valid answers (by your reasoning), and one of them had happened to be correct, would you have declared that the results were 50% correct and therefore evidence of telepathy?
That's a good question, Emily. The p-value in this case is p = 44% (link), which is really large. I think I would rather say possible evidence for telepathy. If such a result was repeated many times, it might lead to strong evidence (a "proof").
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 05:26 AM   #206
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Tamlin View Post
Have you ever done scientific research in your life, Michel?
Yes, I have a Ph.D. degree in physics from a large U.S. university. I have done some more research in physics at home in recent years, but I haven't had time to publish it yet.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 05:29 AM   #207
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Ah ok, so you have a bachelor of science degree in biology. That's pretty good (in view of your name, I was wondering if you have a master's degree in advertisement, something like that), although not it's a doctorate (Ph.D.). You may have never done scientific research in your life, and this might explain why you may have difficulty understanding what I am trying to do here. Generally speaking, everybody is welcome in my threads, but, if you disagree, or have (possibly serious) doubts, I think you should explain the reason for these (something you did not do in your posts #122 and #140, for example), in order to be constructive, to bring something useful in the thread. In this post, you brought a piece of information to the community (albeit in a rather aggressive fashion), so I think that's good.
We all know what you are trying to do here and you have failed miseably.
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 9th November 2013, 05:48 AM   #208
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
that was a vague suggestion of a possible thing to do. Not a requirement.
Well, it was recommended. And you did it quite well.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 06:55 AM   #209
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, it was recommended. And you did it quite well.
When will you be carrying out a telepathy test quite well?
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 9th November 2013, 07:24 AM   #210
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
When will you be carrying out a telepathy test quite well?
Quite well? Well, that, I don't know... I believe I have done a reasonably good job so far, but it is perhaps difficult to judge oneself objectively. Also, I prefer not to go too fast. I believe in the importance of team work, so I want to make sure I have answered everybody properly before launching a new test. I am also thinking of starting a new thread (with a poll), asking people the kind of test they would prefer.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 07:31 AM   #211
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
Well frankly, your opinion is wrong. With a valid sample size of 3 (less than the number of choices available!), the results are valueless.

For the next experiment, toss three coins and claim that getting two or more heads (or tails) 'seems to support' the coin being biased that way.
Well, dlorde, the p-value of this example you take is p=0.50=50% (this link), which is fairly large. In my analysis of post #149, I got p=15.6%. This roughly means that I had less than one in five chance of obtaining a result this good, and yet I got it. Of course, such evidence must be repeated before statistical significance is reached.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 01:01 PM   #212
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Yes, I have a Ph.D. degree in physics from a large U.S. university. I have done some more research in physics at home in recent years, but I haven't had time to publish it yet.

It's amazing, then, that you apparently fail to understand the scientific method.

Your "credibility rating", which you assign arbitrarily, is not science. Neither is changing the protocol after the test in order to change your results to your liking.

I'd ask for my money back on that degree.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan 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 9th November 2013, 02:07 PM   #213
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
It's amazing, then, that you apparently fail to understand the scientific method.

Your "credibility rating", which you assign arbitrarily, is not science. Neither is changing the protocol after the test in order to change your results to your liking.

I'd ask for my money back on that degree.
Credibility rating: I try to use it here within scientific procedures, so I would call it scientific. It doesn't matter if it cannot be defined with great precision (this is psychology, not physics). I think it is a useful concept if there is a correlation between the credibility ratings (with their uncertainties, and preferably chosen in a "blinded" way) and correctness in the numerical answers.
You may find this article by Dan Gillmor, on the Guardian website, interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...anthony-weiner .
I have never posted it, although it talks about "negative credibility". I quote:

Quote:
How can someone raise his credibility to zero? By having negative credibility in the first place.

In my book Mediactive, I have a chart, a version of which is reproduced here, that I call a "credibility scale". It's essentially a meter I keep in mind when evaluating what and who to trust in the media I follow. You will note that the scale does not start at zero and run upward. It starts strongly negative and extends past zero to strongly positive.

I put anonymous comments on random blogs in deep-negative territory. They would have to work incredibly hard just to get up to zero.

On the other end of the scale you'll notice, as an example, the BBC. It, like the Guardian and Telegraph and New York Times and a number of other organisations, starts in generally positive territory – not uniformly so, but with my presumption that the reporting is much more likely to be accurate, thorough and fair, among other qualities, than not. A presumption of credibility extends beyond our best traditional media organisations. I follow some bloggers who rate even higher, because in domains where I'm knowledgeable, they've proved to me that they consistently get things right and in context.
Protocol of the test: I didn't change it after the test. What I did do, however, was to accept answers by participants who posted no MD5 hash, without knowing who (if anyone) had answered correctly (only one person had posted a hash but that person never posted the text used to generate the hash, so it was useless).

Last edited by Michel H; 9th November 2013 at 02:08 PM.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 02:52 PM   #214
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,841
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
... Of course, such evidence must be repeated before statistical significance is reached.
Until then, you cannot reject the null hypothesis (that you are not telepathic). The p-value says nothing at all about the probability of the alternate hypothesis (that you are telepathic) being true.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde 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 9th November 2013, 04:03 PM   #215
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Credibility rating: I try to use it here within scientific procedures, so I would call it scientific. It doesn't matter if it cannot be defined with great precision (this is psychology, not physics).
"Scientific" implies repeatability. Anyone should be able to apply your credibility protocols to the same information and get the same, or similar, results.

Please post protocols you use. I will take them and go back to posts you have already analysed and see how close I come to your ratings.

I have to admit, I don't think you will do this. I don't think you have protocols. I think you create and abandon rationalizations for each individual response to your 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 9th November 2013, 04:15 PM   #216
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Credibility rating: I try to use it here within scientific procedures, so I would call it scientific. It doesn't matter if it cannot be defined with great precision (this is psychology, not physics). I think it is a useful concept if there is a correlation between the credibility ratings (with their uncertainties, and preferably chosen in a "blinded" way) and correctness in the numerical answers.
You may find this article by Dan Gillmor, on the Guardian website, interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...anthony-weiner .
I have never posted it, although it talks about "negative credibility". I quote:



Protocol of the test: I didn't change it after the test. What I did do, however, was to accept answers by participants who posted no MD5 hash, without knowing who (if anyone) had answered correctly (only one person had posted a hash but that person never posted the text used to generate the hash, so it was useless).
Absolute rubbish. You blatantly manipulated results to get the conclusion you wanted. You blatantly manipulated your idiotic credibility scores to get the result you wanted.
__________________
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 9th November 2013, 04:16 PM   #217
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Yes, I have a Ph.D. degree in physics from a large U.S. university. I have done some more research in physics at home in recent years, but I haven't had time to publish it yet.
A bit of advise. No one really cares that you openly, blatantly, mess with the data to get the results you want when it comes to pretend telepathy. If you try this in physics, people will indeed care. You will kill any chance of a career in the field. Previous work will be closely examined. The world of science is very different than whatever it is you are doing here.
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 9th November 2013, 04:19 PM   #218
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 392
Michel,

I am still curious about this.

Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
Michel,

Can you describe the mechanism behind your latest objection? You are saying you can send a number into the mind of a remote person.....unless they later send someone a private message in an internet forum that is any different than the wording they used to report their results in that same forum?

How does their PM block your ability? How long must they refrain from sending PMs to other users? If they wrote something else in some other medium, say a shopping list, what would happen to your telepathy?

Does their PM go back in time and stop you from sending your number? Or does your telepathy look into the future and find out that participants have written something?
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 9th November 2013, 04:36 PM   #219
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
"Scientific" implies repeatability. Anyone should be able to apply your credibility protocols to the same information and get the same, or similar, results.

Please post protocols you use. I will take them and go back to posts you have already analysed and see how close I come to your ratings.

I have to admit, I don't think you will do this. I don't think you have protocols. I think you create and abandon rationalizations for each individual response to your test.
No, I don't have "credibility protocols".
This is an example of an answer I found credible:
Originally Posted by calwaterbear View Post
... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!
, and this is an exemple of an answer that I did not find credible:
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
The last time I partcipated in this guessing game I was accused of being in a mental institution and therefore my response was invalid.

I'm now in a high-sided elastic banjo with an eskimo parasol, so rest assured that my response is both fluffy and perky.

The number I'm seeing is XX.
I think it is likely I am not the only one who can come to these conclusions.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 04:40 PM   #220
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,296
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
I beg of you. Please respond to this. All of you. I have a bike combo padlock. Each of its 4 dials has numbers 1 thru 6 on it. What`s the combination?
It's a pretty good start, but I would point out that it also has a certain resemblance to a classic bunko scheme, though that scheme does not usually use anything as complex as a lock combination. Still, if you had a large enough population to scam, you might get away with it.

In its simple form, it goes something like this:

You contact a number of people and tell them you're a prophet. You then predict the 50/50 outcome of some public event. Actually you guess one side for half, and the other side for the other half. You're guaranteed that at least half your victims will see a correct prediction. With the remaining half, you do this again, and again you halve your number of victims. You keep doing this until you're left with one victim, to whom you will appear to have made a long string of uncanny predictions. You then ask for lots of money on the next bet. If it comes out your way, you do it again. When you lose, you run with the money.

Of course no internet psychic will take up your challenge because it's too much of a challenge really. Make sure you write that combination down!
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 9th November 2013, 04:58 PM   #221
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
Michel,

I am still curious about this.
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
Michel,

Can you describe the mechanism behind your latest objection? You are saying you can send a number into the mind of a remote person.....unless they later send someone a private message in an internet forum that is any different than the wording they used to report their results in that same forum?

How does their PM block your ability? How long must they refrain from sending PMs to other users? If they wrote something else in some other medium, say a shopping list, what would happen to your telepathy?

Does their PM go back in time and stop you from sending your number? Or does your telepathy look into the future and find out that participants have written something?
No, no, I am not saying that sending a message in a unexpected wording changes anything in this tendency I apparently have, to involuntarily send "thoughts" into the minds of people (remote or not).
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 05:03 PM   #222
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Quite well? Well, that, I don't know... I believe I have done a reasonably good job so far
No.
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 9th November 2013, 05:48 PM   #223
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This is an example of an answer I found credible:
Originally Posted by calwaterbear View Post
... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!
, and this is an exemple of an answer that I did not find credible:
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
The last time I partcipated in this guessing game I was accused of being in a mental institution and therefore my response was invalid.

I'm now in a high-sided elastic banjo with an eskimo parasol, so rest assured that my response is both fluffy and perky.

The number I'm seeing is XX.
I think it is likely I am not the only one who can come to these conclusions.

How do you know calwaterbear was being serious? I happen to think both of them were joking and making fun of your test, so per my analysis their CR should be equally negative.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan 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 9th November 2013, 05:49 PM   #224
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, I don't have "credibility protocols".
This is an example of an answer I found credible:
, and this is an exemple of an answer that I did not find credible:
Seriously? You claim not to have protocols, while in the next breath apply those protocols you claim not to have? Really?
__________________
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 9th November 2013, 05:55 PM   #225
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
How do you know calwaterbear was being serious? I happen to think both of them were joking and making fun of your test, so per my analysis their CR should be equally negative.
I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 07:15 PM   #226
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,272
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.
Or as it turns out, Not conductive to your number fudging.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
Nay_Sayer 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 9th November 2013, 08:21 PM   #227
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.

This is a skeptics' forum, and he is saying he has ESP. That doesn't raise a flag? Sure, we get members who actually believe that, but they are a small minority, so the odds are he wasn't being serious, especially given how poorly designed your test was. Did it at least occur to you to ask if he was actually serious or joking?
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 9th November 2013 at 09:01 PM.
AdMan 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 9th November 2013, 09:03 PM   #228
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,296
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.
That says a lot about not only your credulity but your thoroughness. It's easy enough to look up a person's posting history and discover much about him. If you're waiting for calwaterbear to buck up your claims, don't hold your breath.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 9th November 2013, 09:43 PM   #229
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,704
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.

Your naiveivity is quite touching. Sweet even, and a bit like watching a kitten playing with a ball of wool.


For somebody who thinks that they have telepathic powers, you display an amazing ability to be not capable of reading or actually understand anything about real people.

Norm

Last edited by fromdownunder; 9th November 2013 at 09:45 PM.
fromdownunder 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 09:47 PM   #230
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post



This is a skeptics' forum, and he is saying he has ESP. That doesn't raise a flag? Sure, we get members who actually believe that, but they are a small minority, so the odds are he wasn't being serious. Did it at least occur to you to ask if he was actually serious or joking?
calwaterbear's answer doesn't sound like a joke at all, in my opinion. In addition, when you do telepathy tests, I think it is better to try to exercise tact and restraint, and to try not to offend people by an inappropriate insistence. I suspect this is a field where many people do not behave in a very rational way. This is another answer you will perhaps find interesting:
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
It was written by Loss Leader, who is a moderator on this forum.
Both answers (by calwaterbear and Loss Leader) were numerically correct.
It is perhaps also of interest to mention that Randi published in 1982 a book entitled: "Test Your ESP Potential: A Complete Kit With Instructions, Scorecards, and Apparatus." (see link1, link2). This may perhaps surprise some people, who view Randi more as a skeptic than a parapsychologist (of course). According to his wikipedia article, he 'prefers to describe himself as an "investigator" '.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 09:49 PM   #231
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Yes, I have a Ph.D. degree in physics from a large U.S. university. I have done some more research in physics at home in recent years, but I haven't had time to publish it yet.


And I'm the King of Siam.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten 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 9th November 2013, 09:54 PM   #232
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,506
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
And I'm the King of Siam.
Well, if you . . . only . . . okay fine.
Resume 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 9th November 2013, 09:54 PM   #233
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
calwaterbear's answer doesn't sound like a joke at all, in my opinion. In addition, when you do telepathy tests, I think it is better to try to exercise tact and restraint, and to try not to offend people by an inappropriate insistence. I suspect this is a field where many people do not behave in a very rational way. This is another answer you will perhaps find interesting:

It was written by Loss Leader, who is a moderator on this forum.
Both answers (by calwaterbear and Loss Leader) were numerically correct.
It is perhaps also of interest to mention that Randi published in 1982 a book entitled: "Test Your ESP Potential: A Complete Kit With Instructions, Scorecards, and Apparatus." (see link1, link2). This may perhaps surprise some people, who view Randi more as a skeptic than a parapsychologist (of course). According to his wikipedia article, he 'prefers to describe himself as an "investigator" '.
Oh, boy, you are completely self-deluded--and very confused--if you think Randi doesn't think of himself as a complete skeptic when it comes to the supernatural. I assume you've never heard him speak, or read his books, have you? You should look up some of his Youtube videos to educate yourself. Or try reading Flim-Flam, although "Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions" gives away the conclusion.

And I would say Loss Leader was not being serious with that post either.

Here's the thing--I look at the quoted posts in context. I look at the fact that this is the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. I look at the members' posting histories. I understand how most people actually are. And I conclude they were joking, just as was Kid Eager with his guess. So based on all that, I give a negative CR to calwaterbear's and Loss Leader's posts.

If you still don't understand how this shows that your use of a "credibility rating" is completely unscientific, then I say, with a high CR, that either you pulled your PhD in physics degree out of your ass or that that's where it belongs.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 9th November 2013 at 09:59 PM.
AdMan 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 9th November 2013, 10:16 PM   #234
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Your naiveivity is quite touching. Sweet even, and a bit like watching a kitten playing with a ball of wool.


For somebody who thinks that they have telepathic powers, you display an amazing ability to be not capable of reading or actually understand anything about real people.

Norm
naiveivity? This is a word I didn't know. I don't know what goes on in people's minds, I try to understand them, I read them, sometimes I listen to them. I have to rely on the words they use, they decide, they choose to use. And I don't think having a tendency to involuntarily send one's "thoughts" into people's minds is a "power". This is important, because, if you try to explain people you have a "power" that they haven't got, people might get offended. This is basic human psychology.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 10:19 PM   #235
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
naiveivity? This is a word I didn't know.

Stop being disingenuous and pretending you don't know what was meant.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 9th November 2013 at 10:20 PM.
AdMan 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 9th November 2013, 10:56 PM   #236
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Hey Michel, looking into some of Randi's/the JREF's work on this, since you brought it up, led me to the JREF's "Do You Have ESP?" educational module. It's aimed at middle- and high-school students, but I think you'll find the following guidelines helpful in designing your tests, since you haven't been following most of them. Highlighting added so that you don't miss key things.

Originally Posted by JREF
Inexperienced experimenters may commit the mistake of only accepting data that are favorable. Never drop portions of the data because they are only average or negative. Those data are just as important. Another pitfall to avoid is optional stopping. It’s important that you declare a number of trials in advance and stick with that number. It is easy to quit while you’re ahead and avoid the inclusion of negative results.

All tests are subject to random effects that can’t be controlled. With a larger number of trials, it becomes more likely that these random factors will cancel each other out and that a real phenomenon will be detected if it exists.

Experimenters can influence the performance of subjects through conscious or unconscious bias being introduced into the experiment. If this behavior is not controlled, this can substantially affect research results. Experimenters can also unknowingly be a source of information affecting the subject’s response (i.e. facial expressions). The use of the technique known as "double-blind" is essential to ESP testing. In double-blind trials, neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment.

Quote:
You will be able to avoid the above problems and produce more meaningful data by adhering to the following five rules . . .

Rule 1: Declare in advance whether your set of tests will be an actual test or only a dry run. If it is an actual test, count it in the final evaluation. If not, do not count it and only keep it for reference.

Rule 2: Always complete a set of tests by conducting the number of trials that was decided upon and recorded before the start of the test. Further tests may be run, but these must be set up and recorded in the same manner as the previous one, with the number of trials decided upon and recorded ahead of time.

Rule 3: Set the number of trials as large as seems practical. Because you may be limited by the length of your class period, that number may be 100. If you have more time, increase your sample to 250 or 500.

Rule 4: Keep a careful record of test conditions established for each test, as well as variations from one test to another. By this means, you may find that some otherwise trivial factor is seriously affecting the test results.

Rule 5: An outside judge, unaware of expected results, must be used to record and total the scores on the data sheets.

Read the whole PDF. I think you'll learn more than a little.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 9th November 2013 at 11:15 PM.
AdMan 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 9th November 2013, 10:58 PM   #237
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This is important, because, if you try to explain people you have a "power" that they haven't got, people might get offended.


I think you've misunderstood something.

When you tell people that you have super powers and they start backing away from you slowly, it doesn't mean they're offended.



Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This is basic human psychology.


If only you knew.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten 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 9th November 2013, 11:20 PM   #238
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Hey Michel, looking into some of Randi's/the JREF's work on this, since you brought it up, led me to the JREF's "Do You Have ESP?" educational module. It's aimed at middle- and high-school students, but I think you'll find the following guidelines helpful in designing your tests, since you haven't been following most of them. Highlighting added so that you don't miss key things.
...
Read the whole thing. I think you'll learn more than a little.
Thank you, I found this interesting, Adman (I clicked on the link you gave). Although, saying I'll learn anything from this is perhaps a far cry... I suspect this "module" may have been (partly?) based on the Randi's 1982 book I mentioned above.
Michel H 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 Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 11:25 PM   #239
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Thank you, I found this interesting, Adman (I clicked on the link you gave). Although, saying I'll learn anything from this is perhaps a far cry... I suspect this "module" may have been (partly?) based on the Randi's 1982 book I mentioned above.

That's why I quoted it, since you brought up the book.

The module describes a scientific way to test for telepathy and other "modes" of ESP.

And I do think that since you failed to follow many of those guidelines in your own tests, they will serve at least as a reminder from the days when you were working on your doctorate, of how to do actual science.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 9th November 2013 at 11:55 PM.
AdMan 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 10th November 2013, 12:20 AM   #240
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Michel H, do you now understand why your "Credibility Rating" is not scientific? You can define it how you want to, and I can define it how I want to, so it's meaningless. And even if you could define a completely objective, clear and precise way to measure this (a necessary first step, which you're far from reaching), you would need an outside judge, unaware of expected or wanted results, to measure it for each participant.

You are a biased person looking for a result, so you cannot be this judge. You should remember that from your high school science classes. Or read the JREF module.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 10th November 2013 at 12:54 AM.
AdMan 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 02:06 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.