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 11th November 2013, 02:11 AM   #281
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Working within the limitations of a public forum was always going to be a problem. IMO. It would have solved a lot of problems if it had been possible to post a poll that does not show the progress of the vote and only shows the results when the poll is closed. Then he could simply have sent his chosen number via PM to two trusted volunteers who would themselves undertake not to participate in the poll.

Certainly not water-tight by any means, but a lot better that what he been suggested here.

And yet he proceeded with the woefully designed "tests" that he's tried out here. They've been bad enough for some (me included) to doubt his academic credentials.

He definitely needs to rethink how telepathy can be tested (if it even can be) in an online forum. It's been a huge joke (i.e., "Credibility Rating" BS) so far.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 11th November 2013 at 02:22 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 11th November 2013, 06:14 AM   #282
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
It's not the interest, or even belief, in telepathy that's drawing flak here so much as the appallingly unscientific way in which this 'experiment' has been conducted.
I find it hard to believe that it was dreamed up by a scientist.
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 11th November 2013, 07:13 AM   #283
Femke
Goddess of the Glowing Sunsets
 
Femke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I find it hard to believe that it was dreamed up by a scientist.
Well, to be honest, I can believe it. Just because telepathy is so elusive (to the point of non-existence). I can imagine a scientist being so convinced of this phenomenon that they are desperately trying to show it. Since their scientific training is in a whole different domain, they are starting from scratch, so to speak. And then they might forget which parts of their training are general, and which are domain-specific.
For instance, I have a PhD in biology, which is a small but very varied part of science. The normal procedures for conducting a growth test for lettuce cultivars can not be used for devising a test for fruit fly insecticide survival. I am familiar with lettuce, and not so much with fruit flies, so a fruit fly test designed by me would be flawed, although I am a scientist.

I think Michel is so specialised in his field, that he forgot the general rules for science when trying to test something that is extremely far from his domain.
__________________
Epiphanette (a very small epiphany): that kind of tingly, excited feeling of realizing that you were wrong, and that you have to adjust your world view accordingly. - With thanks to Weak Kitten and Blue Sock Monkey.

I am 100% confident all professional psychics and mediums are frauds. The rest might be sincere but are still deluded.
Femke 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 11th November 2013, 07:18 AM   #284
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Femke View Post
Well, to be honest, I can believe it. Just because telepathy is so elusive (to the point of non-existence). I can imagine a scientist being so convinced of this phenomenon that they are desperately trying to show it. Since their scientific training is in a whole different domain, they are starting from scratch, so to speak. And then they might forget which parts of their training are general, and which are domain-specific.
For instance, I have a PhD in biology, which is a small but very varied part of science. The normal procedures for conducting a growth test for lettuce cultivars can not be used for devising a test for fruit fly insecticide survival. I am familiar with lettuce, and not so much with fruit flies, so a fruit fly test designed by me would be flawed, although I am a scientist.

I think Michel is so specialised in his field, that he forgot the general rules for science when trying to test something that is extremely far from his domain.
But why ditch the scientific method? A child could spot the flaws in his test.
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 11th November 2013, 07:42 AM   #285
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I meant that no-one (whether Randi, the claimant or a third party judge) is allowed to make a subjective judgement about whether or not the test was a success or a failure. That is the question that was being asked.

The OP made a subjective assessment about each response by assigning a score from -10 to 10. From there it is a routine statistical analysis to determine if the OP meets the required significance above chance to validate his claim.


Quote:
I never said it wasn't. Michel's previous tests weren't, but I agree with Agatha that this one was a considerable improvement, though it was still a long way from the sort of protocol that would be accepted for a real MDC test. I can understand why some posters thought it was a sufficiently big step forward to be encouraged but I had severe doubts that it would enable any genuine progress to be made - doubts that have sadly proved to be justified.

What's there not to accept? Sure it lacks the rigorous specification of the statistical analysis that must be used to analized the result. It lacks a specification for the number of trials but that cannot be specified until after a few trial runs. Probably the biggest drawback is that the protocol is dependent on the cooperation of the forum posters who are so terribly unsure of their own reality that they will choose to disrupt the test rather than face the possibility that they are wrong.

The failure on the "skeptics" side is catastrophic in that they didn't recognize how the protocol was not secure.
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 11th November 2013, 07:49 AM   #286
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
The OP made a subjective assessment about each response by assigning a score from -10 to 10. From there it is a routine statistical analysis to determine if the OP meets the required significance above chance to validate his claim.





What's there not to accept? Sure it lacks the rigorous specification of the statistical analysis that must be used to analized the result. It lacks a specification for the number of trials but that cannot be specified until after a few trial runs. Probably the biggest drawback is that the protocol is dependent on the cooperation of the forum posters who are so terribly unsure of their own reality that they will choose to disrupt the test rather than face the possibility that they are wrong.

The failure on the "skeptics" side is catastrophic in that they didn't recognize how the protocol was not secure.
I'm thinking of a number between 0 and 10. What is 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 11th November 2013, 07:57 AM   #287
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,351
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
The OP made a subjective assessment about each response by assigning a score from -10 to 10. From there it is a routine statistical analysis to determine if the OP meets the required significance above chance to validate his claim.
Once again: I was answering a specific question about the JREF MDC. I was not referring to the OP.

Quote:
What's there not to accept?
All the problems with the protocol you go on to list, for a start.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:19 AM   #288
tuxcat
Muse
 
tuxcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 818
Can someone recap for me - did he (the OP) perform better than chance alone?
tuxcat 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 11th November 2013, 11:13 AM   #289
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tuxcat View Post
Can someone recap for me - did he (the OP) perform better than chance alone?
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 11th November 2013, 11:30 AM   #290
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,530
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I find no element in calwaterbear's answer, leading me to believe his answer is not serious.
I believe this gives you a very high gullibility rating.
phunk 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 11th November 2013, 11:46 AM   #291
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,241
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Probably the biggest drawback is that the protocol is dependent on the cooperation of the forum posters who are so terribly unsure of their own reality that they will choose to disrupt the test rather than face the possibility that they are wrong.



No-one who seriously want to think of themselves as a skeptic should ever stoop so low as to disrupt someone else's test, however unscientific they think that test is. Just don't participate, or if you must say something, use the PM system to suggest how the test might be improved.

As I quoted in another thread

“The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavour of science."
- Carl Sagan

ETA: or perhaps more applicable to this thread, and also from Sagan...

“The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.”

__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 11th November 2013 at 12:00 PM.
smartcooky 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 11th November 2013, 03:57 PM   #292
superfreddy
Muse
 
superfreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 807
So, was the answer 3?
superfreddy 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 11th November 2013, 03:59 PM   #293
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
Originally Posted by tuxcat View Post
Can someone recap for me - did he (the OP) perform better than chance alone?
Before the results were revealed, Michel ranked the credibility of the answers, and the highest credibility score he gave was zero. By at least one reasonable way of assessing the results, that means he got zero of zero valid responses, which is not enough for any sort of statistical significance (to put it mildly).

However, if we threw out only the negative credibility scores, keeping the ones with zero, the results were revealed to be 2 of 6, which is ever-so-slightly greater than the expected 1.5, but not enough to be significant.

At this point, knowing the results, Michel decided to recalculate the credibility scores, and threw out three incorrect results, thus giving himself an astonishing 66% success. For some reason, he expects us to take this seriously.
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr 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 11th November 2013, 05:37 PM   #294
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by xtifr View Post
Before the results were revealed, Michel ranked the credibility of the answers, and the highest credibility score he gave was zero. By at least one reasonable way of assessing the results, that means he got zero of zero valid responses, which is not enough for any sort of statistical significance (to put it mildly).

However, if we threw out only the negative credibility scores, keeping the ones with zero, the results were revealed to be 2 of 6, which is ever-so-slightly greater than the expected 1.5, but not enough to be significant.

At this point, knowing the results, Michel decided to recalculate the credibility scores, and threw out three incorrect results, thus giving himself an astonishing 66% success. For some reason, he expects us to take this seriously.
It should be remembered that this data fudging is consistent with his prior test. In that one, his results were consistent with what you would expect with random guessing. He threw out all the answers that were inconsistent with his claim, using something he calls a "credibility rating", and gave himself a perfect score.

This latest test was his attempt to prove, not that he had the power of telepathy, but that his credibility system was not influenced by his knowledge of the answers people were giving.
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 12th November 2013, 01:51 PM   #295
Femke
Goddess of the Glowing Sunsets
 
Femke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
But why ditch the scientific method? A child could spot the flaws in his test.
I know, that is the part I really don't understand.
__________________
Epiphanette (a very small epiphany): that kind of tingly, excited feeling of realizing that you were wrong, and that you have to adjust your world view accordingly. - With thanks to Weak Kitten and Blue Sock Monkey.

I am 100% confident all professional psychics and mediums are frauds. The rest might be sincere but are still deluded.
Femke 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 12th November 2013, 04:56 PM   #296
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by Femke View Post
I know, that is the part I really don't understand.
I don't think it is really that big of a mystery. I suspect he doesn't use the scientific method because it doesn't give him the results he wants to see. I'd even say that a conditional acceptance of the scientific method is in itself a rejection.
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 12th November 2013, 05:08 PM   #297
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
So 6 answers are valid when they agree with your conclusions, but 3 of those are invalid when they do not. How non-scientific of you. ...
In this test, I got answers from 6 people (you [Hokulele], Ladewig, stanfr, Kid Eager, Femke and gabeygoat) who posted answers with "xx", and sent an unambiguous and valid numerical answer to the assistant Agatha (see post #127 and post #149). I think that one may reasonably adopt the point of view that these 6 people gave valid answers (not providing a MD5 hash is not very important if an answer is sent to the assistant, as Ladewig said:
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
...

.
I am not encrypting it, I will just send it to Agatha
). Two of those were numerically correct ( the answers by Ladewig and Femke, this is what Agatha found in her analysis), this gives us a correct answer rate (CAR) equal to CAR = 2/6 = 33%, which a little higher than the CAR expected from chance alone, which is about 25%. However, a closer look reveals that three of these answerers (stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat) gravely violated the recommended protocol explained in the opening post, because they had sent to Agatha a text which was different from the one they had posted in the thread. For exemple, gabeygoat posted:
"I'm gonna guess xx
not sure what im doing
",
whereas he sent "guessed 4 de4f022d0deba6911bedf9a0350256aa". These two texts "sound" rather differently, and the credibility rating (CR = 0) I gave to gabeygoat's first text, using the "blind" procedure, does not necessarily apply (and, even, probably does not apply) to his second text. In my opening post, I "recommended" that participants send their texts (one, and only one for each participant in the test) to the assistant(s). I didn't say:"Hey guys, feel free to invent another text (please, show great imagination), and to send that one to the assistant(s)". I said: It may also be useful (I recommend it) that you send your (full) answer, in the form of a private message, to either Agatha, or Femke, or to both.... I said "your (full) answer". I didn't say "some text, with your chosen number". But now comes the interesting part. None of the three participants who violated the recommended protocol (stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat, as said above) provided correct numerical answers. In other words the CAR of this group was equal to 0%. This is apparently an interesting confirmation of the ideas I have explained and developed in my previous threads, on the correlation between credibility (here, credibility stemming from carefully abiding by the recommended protocol) and numerical correctness. The average CR I gave (in a blind way) to people who followed the recommended protocol was (0-5+0)/3 = -1.7, the average CR I gave to people who did not, was (-5-5+0)/3 = -3.3 (a little less). The correct answer rate for the people who followed the recommended protocol in its most important aspects (Hokulele, Ladewig and Femke) was equal to CAR = 2/3 = 67%. This CAR is the most important and significant hit rate, I believe, the hit rate of the most careful, serious, credible and motivated people.

Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
No, I don't rate for credibility in this way (or, at least, I try not to)
...
But you did. Go read your analysis of my response again.
No, that's not true. This what I said about your answer in post #127:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
Her answer: "The first number that came to my attention is xx, so that is my choice for this test." does not make her answer credible, in my opinion, in a telepathy test, where the thing that matters is what you (telepathically) perceive, not the first number which "comes to your attention". Hokulele's answer is written using a rather formal style, which is odd here (and which I even find slightly arrogant , which is not favorable for credibility). Telepathic perception is probably mostly an involuntary process, something you mostly cannot control, it's not like "giving (visual) attention" to an image.

But she also said later 'I "predict" that his credibility ratings will no longer correlate with correctness'. This does suggest that she wrote a (numerically) correct answer, with a not credible answer (she most probably realizes her answer is not credible), so that the usual correlation is lost (her answer does not seem credible; if the frequent correlation must be lost, one should expect it to be numerically correct). ...
So, instead of giving a negative credibility, I finally choose: CR = 0 (I note also she gave no MD5 hash). I prefer to not give a positive credibility to an answer which explains a number choice by "a first number coming to attention" (as if she had seen it).
...
In other words, I revised my CR of your answer from negative to zero, because of what you said later.
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 12th November 2013, 05:14 PM   #298
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,918
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In other words, I revised my CR of your answer from negative to zero, because of what you said later.
Why not design a protocol that doesn't involve you judging the credibility of the answers after you know what they are?

Why not leave out judging altogether?
RoboTimbo 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 12th November 2013, 05:15 PM   #299
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Seriously, is it April 1st?

Credibility Ratings and Hash Tags?


Something weird has happened to to this place.
Attention: Nutter/Troll
ComfySlippers 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 12th November 2013, 05:30 PM   #300
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Why not design a protocol that doesn't involve you judging the credibility of the answers after you know what they are?

Why not leave out judging altogether?
Quote:
Why not design a protocol that doesn't involve you judging the credibility of the answers after you know what they are?
This is precisely what I tried to do in this new test.
Quote:
Why not leave out judging altogether?
Because, when all answers are considered on an equal footing, regardless of how serious and reliable they sound, I seem to obtain results similar (or close) to chance (results).
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 12th November 2013, 05:50 PM   #301
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,918
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Because, when all answers are considered on an equal footing, regardless of how serious and reliable they sound, I seem to obtain results similar (or close) to chance (results).
LOL.
RoboTimbo 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 12th November 2013, 07:12 PM   #302
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Because, when all answers are considered on an equal footing, regardless of how serious and reliable they sound, I seem to obtain results similar (or close) to chance (results).
And when you apply your credibility ratings without knowing the answers, you also get results similar to chance. The ONLY way you get the results you want is look at the answers, throw out the ones that don't support your beliefs, and then come up with rationalizations for doing so.

Everything about your test is about fudging the results. You refuse to use a large number of possible numbers. You can't fudge the results if no one guesses your number by chance.

You refuse to produce a protocol for your credibility ratings. You can't fudge the numbers if you can't make up rules after the face.

You can't accept the results of your test of your credibility ratings. Again, you can't fudge the numbers if you can't make up rules after the face.

You say you have a PhD in physics. That means you understand full well what 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 12th November 2013, 08:27 PM   #303
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Because, when all answers are considered on an equal footing, regardless of how serious and reliable they sound, I seem to obtain results similar (or close) to chance (results).



Why do you think that is, Michel, seriously?

You're blatantly admitting you insert your CR "analysis" in order to get the results you want.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 08:38 PM   #304
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,214
In trying to answer the posed question of post #286, the number 7 came to me. How did i do? And does close count for anything?
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme 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 12th November 2013, 08:56 PM   #305
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
...

Why do you think that is, Michel, seriously?

...
Well, I assume it is related to the psychology of people, you may call this a common lack of honesty (from participants in telepathy tests) if you want. People seem to have a honest side, but it is limited. People are honest in telepathy in the sense that, when they lie, you can "see it", or "guess it", from the words they use (in favorable cases). They are not honest (in my opinion) in the sense that they just tell the truth. Thinking that participants in telepathy tests, "the people" , are perfectly honest, while "claimants" like myself are always highly suspicious, and likely cheaters, is a great error, in my opinion. However, you don't have to agree with me, you are entitled to your own opinion. It is possible that you are still young, and that you have many illusions about this human society.
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 12th November 2013, 09:01 PM   #306
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, I assume it is related to the psychology of people, you may call this a common lack of honesty (from participants in telepathy tests) if you want. People seem to have a honest side, but it is limited. People are honest in telepathy in the sense that, when they lie, you can "see it", or "guess it", from the words they use (in favorable cases). They are not honest (in my opinion) in the sense that they just tell the truth. Thinking that participants in telepathy tests, "the people" , are perfectly honest, while "claimants" like myself are always highly suspicious, and likely cheaters, is a great error, in my opinion. However, you don't have to agree with me, you are entitled to your own opinion. It is possible that you are still young, and that you have many illusions about this human society.

I have no illusions that you are doing anything actually scientific by applying an entirely subjective "Credibility Rating" to get the results you want.

I struggle to understand, given your background, how you think that is even remotely acceptable.

You are simply not doing science, and you are being dishonest, as a supposed scientist, by pretending you are. You should know that.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 09:12 PM   #307
TheSapient
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, I assume it is related to the psychology of people, you may call this a common lack of honesty (from participants in telepathy tests) if you want. People seem to have a honest side, but it is limited. People are honest in telepathy in the sense that, when they lie, you can "see it", or "guess it", from the words they use (in favorable cases). They are not honest (in my opinion) in the sense that they just tell the truth. Thinking that participants in telepathy tests, "the people" , are perfectly honest, while "claimants" like myself are always highly suspicious, and likely cheaters, is a great error, in my opinion. However, you don't have to agree with me, you are entitled to your own opinion. It is possible that you are still young, and that you have many illusions about this human society.
How do you explain the complete failure of your credibility system in this last test?

Given what you wrote above you seem to be saying that the reason your results are consistent with random chance is that everyone knew what number you wrote down, but exactly 25% of people are honest, and the rest are not.

I'm going to ask this again. Why don't you just use a really large number of potential numbers to really suss out the effect of chance? I know why you don't answer, but your continued silence is also telling.
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 12th November 2013, 10:09 PM   #308
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,214
Is the objective of this study to see if Michel has a power? Since Michel is the originator...if several receivers (i`ll call them) are receptive to Michels thoughts, above statistical odds, this proves Michel is in possession of a power? What about each receiver? Arent they of equal power? Does it matter if say 2 or 3 people receive what Michel sends, that since he outnumbers the receivers, that it must be him that has such overwhelming powers that he can say `come into` an ordinary mind? If that is the thinking, what is the basis of that thinking? While pondering all this....do any of you remember like 20 years ago(long ago, i cant recall exactly) there was this famous yogi guru, i`m thinking the one tied to the Beatles(i think he owned like 37 Rolls Royces or something)...remember this guy?...Anyhow, he wanted the world to pray for something on this one given day at some particular time, in hopes that our aggregate minds would cause his hope to occur. From my recollections, nothing was achieved. Michel, do you recall this? And do you have any thoughts in regard to this, and in any way how this is similar or different from what you are trying to do here? One thing that i felt he had going for him, and all the potential participants is the fact it required joint concentration. With your test, other than you thinking of some number at only one point in time, and writing it down...i`m not sure where the telepathy would come from at say those times you are NOT concentrating on your number almost in some Zen-like state, and a participant happened along only when you had the number written down, but there was no more concentration really on your part. Know what i mean?
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme 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 12th November 2013, 10:13 PM   #309
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by superfreddy View Post
So, was the answer 3?


Yes, but it wasn't credible enough so it was rejected.
__________________


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 12th November 2013, 10:28 PM   #310
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by TheSapient View Post
...

Given what you wrote above you seem to be saying that the reason your results are consistent with random chance is that everyone knew what number you wrote down, but exactly 25% of people are honest, and the rest are not.

I'm going to ask this again. Why don't you just use a really large number of potential numbers to really suss out the effect of chance? I know why you don't answer, but your continued silence is also telling.
Quote:
Given what you wrote above you seem to be saying that the reason your results are consistent with random chance is that everyone knew what number you wrote down, but exactly 25% of people are honest, and the rest are not.
Well, it's possible that I get 30% on a Monday, but, the next day, perhaps people will think I need to get 20%

Quote:
I'm going to ask this again. Why don't you just use a really large number of potential numbers to really suss out the effect of chance? I know why you don't answer, but your continued silence is also telling.
I am not again the idea of asking people to guess, for example an integer, a digit between 0 and 9 (inclusive). It could be nice for a quick proof, or for strong statistical evidence. But I suspect it will be psychologically harder for people to admit they know (through telepathy) I wrote a one-digit number, than to admit I wrote a number between 1 and 4 (inclusive). When they say I wrote a number between 1 and 4, they are giving away less information, they are perhaps feeling more secure. I may end up with no correct answer, that's always disappointing. This problem may be much more concerning, serious and annoying than just doing a statistical analysis, with a known mathematical tool. It is important to use a realistic and practical approch, preferably based on experience. I don't have a good memory of tests with a one-digit number as a target I did on Yahoo! Answers.
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 12th November 2013, 10:36 PM   #311
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
Is the objective of this study to see if Michel has a power? Since Michel is the originator...if several receivers (i`ll call them) are receptive to Michels thoughts, above statistical odds, this proves Michel is in possession of a power? What about each receiver? Arent they of equal power? Does it matter if say 2 or 3 people receive what Michel sends, that since he outnumbers the receivers, that it must be him that has such overwhelming powers that he can say `come into` an ordinary mind? If that is the thinking, what is the basis of that thinking? While pondering all this....do any of you remember like 20 years ago(long ago, i cant recall exactly) there was this famous yogi guru, i`m thinking the one tied to the Beatles(i think he owned like 37 Rolls Royces or something)...remember this guy?...Anyhow, he wanted the world to pray for something on this one given day at some particular time, in hopes that our aggregate minds would cause his hope to occur. From my recollections, nothing was achieved. Michel, do you recall this? And do you have any thoughts in regard to this, and in any way how this is similar or different from what you are trying to do here? One thing that i felt he had going for him, and all the potential participants is the fact it required joint concentration. With your test, other than you thinking of some number at only one point in time, and writing it down...i`m not sure where the telepathy would come from at say those times you are NOT concentrating on your number almost in some Zen-like state, and a participant happened along only when you had the number written down, but there was no more concentration really on your part. Know what i mean?
Well, I wouldn't say I have a "power", no. A power is something you can control. Also, I don't really need to "concentrate" a lot. Keep in mind also that people have a memory, and that I repeat the number during tests. As to your yogi guru millionaire, what you are talking about sounds more like telekinesis to me.

Last edited by Michel H; 12th November 2013 at 10:41 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 12th November 2013, 10:56 PM   #312
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Michel, what you need to do, if you want to continue with this kind of approach and refuse to accept that your use of CR is unscientific, is to get rid of the need to apply it. Simply ask everyone to write exactly "I choose X" or simply "X", and to send in the number they are thinking of for X to an independent observer, who doesn't know the target number. You should outright reject any submission that is more than simply that. A simple poll would work as well, if you don't take into account any comments (though, ideally, no participant should see what anyone else is selecting). Then there is no need to subjectively evaluate each submission, and you are one step closer to something actually scientific.

Until you try something that is more scientific and rigorous than what you've done so far (and I'd forgotten you had tried doing tests on Yahoo! Answers ), your results are worthless.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 12th November 2013 at 11:37 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 12th November 2013, 11:47 PM   #313
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,704
If you simply want to stick to the numbers 1 - 4, here is another option. Find somebody you trust not to attempt to fudge the answers.

You go into one room with a RNG, and generate a number between 1 and 4, write it down, and mentally project this number to your trusted friend for 60 seconds. After sixty seconds, he writes the number down.

Repeat 50 times, then compare answers. See what % of hits you get with exact correlation on both your lists. The whole thing will take less than an hour, and you probably need one other person in each room to ensure that there is no cheating, or hidden communication devices.

Let us know the result.

Norm

Last edited by fromdownunder; 12th November 2013 at 11:49 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 13th November 2013, 12:04 AM   #314
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
If you simply want to stick to the numbers 1 - 4, here is another option. Find somebody you trust not to attempt to fudge the answers.

You go into one room with a RNG, and generate a number between 1 and 4, write it down, and mentally project this number to your trusted friend for 60 seconds. After sixty seconds, he writes the number down.

Repeat 50 times, then compare answers. See what % of hits you get with exact correlation on both your lists. The whole thing will take less than an hour, and you probably need one other person in each room to ensure that there is no cheating, or hidden communication devices.

Let us know the result.

Norm


Good test, but may I suggest altering the highlighted text to "then have someone else compare the answers"?

I'm sure most of us are in no doubt that if Michel does the comparing himself then a major part of the process would be eliminating most, if not all, of the non-matches because of their lack of credibility.
__________________


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 13th November 2013, 12:13 AM   #315
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
It really is not at all difficult to design a simple scientific test for telepathy or ESP in general (as mentioned earlier, the JREF itself provides guidelines for school kids to do so) but it must be done carefully and rigorously.

That Michel apparently fails to understand this and wants to mess it up with unscientific concepts such as a subjective, ill-defined "Credibility Rating" is bizarre, unless the intent is to intentionally deceive.
__________________
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 13th November 2013, 12:29 AM   #316
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
That Michel apparently fails to understand this and wants to mess it up with unscientific concepts such as a subjective, ill-defined "Credibility Rating" is bizarre, unless the intent is to intentionally deceive.


If Michel's intent is to deceive us then I find the exercise even more bizarre.

Regardless of his own conviction that this ridiculous 'credibility rating' is a valid tool, he can't possibly have convinced himself that anyone else is going to buy it.
__________________


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 13th November 2013, 12:46 AM   #317
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,351
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I suspect it will be psychologically harder for people to admit they know (through telepathy) I wrote a one-digit number, than to admit I wrote a number between 1 and 4 (inclusive)
Are you saying that the people who guessed the correct number in this or your previous tests actually know that they obtained this information through telepathy? That they telepathically "heard" you and chose to write down the number they heard, whilst those who guessed wrong telepathically "heard" the right number and chose to write down a different one?
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 01:12 AM   #318
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you saying that the people who guessed the correct number in this or your previous tests actually know that they obtained this information through telepathy? That they telepathically "heard" you and chose to write down the number they heard, whilst those who guessed wrong telepathically "heard" the right number and chose to write down a different one?
Yes, I presume that's what's happening. There seems to exist a strong telepathic phenomenon, and failures in tests generally seem to result more from an unwillingness to fully cooperate than from somehow a lack of telepathic signal.
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 13th November 2013, 01:13 AM   #319
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
There seems to exist a strong telepathic phenomenon, and failures in tests generally seem to result more from an unwillingness to fully cooperate than from somehow a lack of telepathic signal.

Please cite the peer-reviewed studies that support these claims.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 13th November 2013 at 01:19 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 13th November 2013, 01:39 AM   #320
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,704
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Yes, I presume that's what's happening. There seems to exist a strong telepathic phenomenon, and failures in tests generally seem to result more from an unwillingness to fully cooperate than from somehow a lack of telepathic signal.
And this sums up Michel H's entire case in a nutshell. People who give right answers are right, people who give wrong answers are liars. He will never be convinced otherwise. He is right, the rest of the planet is wrong.

There is no hope left of any rationality left for this one. Perhaps the Philosophy Degree overrode the Physics degree and Michel H has forgotten everything scientific that he ever learned.

Norm

Last edited by fromdownunder; 13th November 2013 at 01:40 AM.
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
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 02:11 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.