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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 13th November 2013, 01:47 AM   #321
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Randi has a perfectly valid test for dowsing. Why don't all the applicants just take that test instead of mucking about with designing their own protocol?


The answer is that not all the applicants are claiming to be able to dowse.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 01:52 AM   #322
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Please cite the peer-reviewed studies that support these claims.

That is a typical "skeptic" response to what was presented as only a personal observation. Randi has taught you well.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 01:52 AM   #323
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Randi has a perfectly valid test for dowsing. Why don't all the applicants just take that test instead of mucking about with designing their own protocol?


The answer is that not all the applicants are claiming to be able to dowse.

Gee, that was helpful.

Who are you responding to?
__________________
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, 01:55 AM   #324
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
That is a typical "skeptic" response to what was presented as only a personal observation. Randi has taught you well.

It was a response to a claim by someone who's claimed in this thread that he has a PhD in physics, and supposedly has a scientific approach to the subject.

If you disagree with looking at things scientifically, then maybe this isn't the place for you.
__________________
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, 02:01 AM   #325
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
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?

If "skeptics” could follow instructions there wouldn't have been any problem.


Quote:
Why not leave out judging altogether?

Michel has explained why the rating is necessary multiple times.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 02:02 AM   #326
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
It was a response to a claim by someone who's claimed in this thread that he has a PhD in physics, and supposedly has a scientific approach to the subject.

If you disagree with looking at things scientifically, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

What's not scientific about Michel's test?
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 02:03 AM   #327
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post

Michel has explained why the rating is necessary multiple times.

Yes, it's clear he needs it to ensure the results come out the way he wants.

__________________
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, 02:05 AM   #328
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
What's not scientific about Michel's test?

Are you serious? As has been pointed out numerous times, assigning a subjective "Credibility Rating" is completely unscientific.

Are you trolling?
__________________
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, 02:08 AM   #329
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Gee, that was helpful.

Who are you responding to?

Multiple posters that think they can make major changes to the protocol and not affect what it is testing. You being just one of them.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 02:09 AM   #330
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Yeah, you're trolling.

Not wasting my time on you.

Bye bye.
__________________
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, 02:13 AM   #331
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
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.
Every time you've run a test I've sat quietly and genuinely tried to "hear" a particular number between 1 and 4. Every time I heard nothing, and knew that in order to take part in your test I would have to pick a number completely at random, so I didn't bother. I assume that everybody who did take part in your test (rather than make fun of it) also heard nothing and simply chose the first number between 1 and 4 that came to mind. The results of this latest experiment support my assumption, not yours.

Perhaps those posters who both gave what turned out to be the right answer and whom you assessed as credible could now describe why they actually chose the number they gave. If they say they really did "hear" a particular number, I will reconsider. If they all say that they "heard" nothing but simply chose a number between 1 and 4 at random, will you reconsider?
__________________
"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, 02:19 AM   #332
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Perhaps those posters who both gave what turned out to be the right answer and whom you assessed as credible could now describe why they actually chose the number they gave. If they say they really did "hear" a particular number, I will reconsider. If they all say that they "heard" nothing but simply chose a number between 1 and 4 at random, will you reconsider?

This kind of post-test analysis does not belong in a proper scientific test unless it was part of the original protocol. Too much "noise" involved. It will just help to confuse things, unfortunately.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 13th 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 13th November 2013, 02:20 AM   #333
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
As has been pointed out numerous times, assigning a subjective "Credibility Rating" is completely unscientific.

Is that just the opinion of the posters or can it be backed by peer-reviewed literaturee?
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 02:30 AM   #334
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
This kind of post-test analysis does not belong in a proper scientific test unless it was part of the original protocol. Too much "noise" involved. It will just help to confuse things, unfortunately.
I'm not suggesting it as part of the test, but as a way that Michel can check the assumptions on which he based its design.
__________________
"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, 02:35 AM   #335
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I'm not suggesting it as part of the test, but as a way that Michel can check the assumptions on which he based its design.
OK, I understand. I doubt it will help Michel in any way, but hope springs eternal.
__________________
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, 02:59 AM   #336
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Are you serious? As has been pointed out numerous times, assigning a subjective "Credibility Rating" is completely unscientific.
Assigning a credibility rating to the posters after it has been revealed which guessed correctly is unscientific, which is why the first couple of tests were worthless, but this test ensured that Michel assigned his credibility ratings before he knew whether they had given the right answer. This made the test protocol acceptable, and its results as meaningful as such a small sample could be.

Obviously Michel's second assignment of credibility ratings, done after the results were revealed, is as unscientific as the ones he did in his first tests, and likewise utterly worthless.
__________________
"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, 03:14 AM   #337
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Every time you've run a test I've sat quietly and genuinely tried to "hear" a particular number between 1 and 4. Every time I heard nothing, and knew that in order to take part in your test I would have to pick a number completely at random, so I didn't bother. I assume that everybody who did take part in your test (rather than make fun of it) also heard nothing and simply chose the first number between 1 and 4 that came to mind. The results of this latest experiment support my assumption, not yours.

Perhaps those posters who both gave what turned out to be the right answer and whom you assessed as credible could now describe why they actually chose the number they gave. If they say they really did "hear" a particular number, I will reconsider. If they all say that they "heard" nothing but simply chose a number between 1 and 4 at random, will you reconsider?

If you don't normally "hear" voices in your head, why would you suddenly expect to hear this particular voice announcing a number from 1 to 4?

I'm not sure Michel heard your earlier question. Taking his answer at face value, he would be in essence saying that everybody is telepathic and they know it but because of the social stigma they hide it completely. This interpretation of the world is just too bizaar to contemplate. Besides, it would make me feel like the odd one.

If telepathic reception is not something we are consciously aware of, we would have to pull the answer from our unconscious. This is the element of writing the first statement that comes to mind about the first number that comes to mind. If your mind is in sync with Michel's at that time, he will register a high credibility for your statement and if his theory is correct, the high credibility for the statement will cooralate with the correctness of the number.

It would not be difficult to work out a protocol so there is no retroactive changing of the credibility scores after the received numbers are known. And there are plenty of statisticians that could provide the formulas to convert the raw numbers into a test result that determines if the claim was demonstrated to better than 1000:1 odds.

But I'm going to rain on your and Michel's parade and say right now that there is no way that the JREF MDC would ever accept this test. The problem is that there can be a cooralation between the statement and the number contained in the statement that would allow the claimant to score better than chance and there is no way to separate these two elements.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 03:45 AM   #338
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
If you don't normally "hear" voices in your head, why would you suddenly expect to hear this particular voice announcing a number from 1 to 4?
Michel was claiming that I would somehow be able to tell which number he was transmitting, so to be fair to him I made the attempt to "hear" a number. If I had got any impression of one particular number (not necessarily as a voice saying it, just an impulse to pick one number rather than any other would have done) I would have participated in the test.

Quote:
I'm not sure Michel heard your earlier question. Taking his answer at face value, he would be in essence saying that everybody is telepathic and they know it but because of the social stigma they hide it completely.
I think that is exactly what he is saying, yes. I originally thought the credibility ratings were just to exclude those who hadn't made a genuine attempt to "hear" his telepathic transmission, but it seems he thinks everybody is actually receiving them and some are choosing to lie about doing so.

We had another guy here a while back who was trying to figure out a way of using a lie detector in a test protocol for telepathy, because he too was convinced everyone was hearing his thoughts so those who said they weren't must be lying.

Quote:
This interpretation of the world is just too bizaar to contemplate. Besides, it would make me feel like the odd one.
The belief that other people are hearing your thoughts but are lying about doing so may seem bizarre, but quite a few people seem to have it. It's usually a symptom of a mental illness such as schizophrenia.

Quote:
If telepathic reception is not something we are consciously aware of, we would have to pull the answer from our unconscious. This is the element of writing the first statement that comes to mind about the first number that comes to mind. If your mind is in sync with Michel's at that time, he will register a high credibility for your statement and if his theory is correct, the high credibility for the statement will cooralate with the correctness of the number.
That was what I originally thought his reasoning was too, but it appears I was wrong.

Quote:
It would not be difficult to work out a protocol so there is no retroactive changing of the credibility scores after the received numbers are known. And there are plenty of statisticians that could provide the formulas to convert the raw numbers into a test result that determines if the claim was demonstrated to better than 1000:1 odds.
The protocol in the OP seemed to be a step towards that, but Michel's abandonment of it as soon as it was clear it would not give the answer he wanted suggests he is not really interested in coming up with a scientifically rigorous protocol.

Quote:
But I'm going to rain on your and Michel's parade and say right now that there is no way that the JREF MDC would ever accept this test. The problem is that there can be a cooralation between the statement and the number contained in the statement that would allow the claimant to score better than chance and there is no way to separate these two elements.
Not sure what you mean by that. What statement?
__________________
"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, 04:02 AM   #339
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
What's not scientific about Michel's test?
Please at least make an attempt to be serious.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 04:48 AM   #340
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Michel was claiming that I would somehow be able to tell which number he was transmitting, so to be fair to him I made the attempt to "hear" a number. If I had got any impression of one particular number (not necessarily as a voice saying it, just an impulse to pick one number rather than any other would have done) I would have participated in the test.
...
You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know":
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
... You may also answer "I don't know".
...
. And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).
Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility, your opinions seem to vary (although you seem to be a careful person). It is not my goal to try to impose a certain point of view to others here, especially if it is wrong, people are entitled to their free opinions. I see myself as a "scientist" and a truthseeker. Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others. I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it). If I do a rigorous test again on this forum, I will probably emphasize more that, if the text sent to the assistant is any different from the posted one, the answer will be considered as protocol violating (although it will still be considered with great interest). One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 05:11 AM   #341
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,084
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
If "skeptics” could follow instructions there wouldn't have been any problem.
No, the problem was Michel not following his protocol. He changed his own blinded credibility ratings after knowing the answers given. Why does your "skepticism" not allow you to think that that isn't a problem?

Quote:
Michel has explained why the rating is necessary multiple times.
It was a rhetorical question. Everyone except Michel knows why he uses credibility ratings. I was hoping to get him to realize it.
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 13th November 2013, 05:14 AM   #342
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
That is a typical "skeptic" response to what was presented as only a personal observation. Randi has taught you well.
You misunderstand the purpose of these forums. They are not personal blogs.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 05:16 AM   #343
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know":
. And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).
Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility, your opinions seem to vary (although you seem to be a careful person). It is not my goal to try to impose a certain point of view to others here, especially if it is wrong, people are entitled to their free opinions. I see myself as a "scientist" and a truthseeker. Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others. I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it). If I do a rigorous test again on this forum, I will probably emphasize more that, if the text sent to the assistant is any different from the posted one, the answer will be considered as protocol violating (although it will still be considered with great interest). One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.
You can judge the veracity and the character of a person by an answer on the internet? Are you claiming to have a second superpower? When you say checking for credibility you mean 'I reiect all answers that do not fit my delusion'.

Last edited by dafydd; 13th November 2013 at 05:17 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 05:42 AM   #344
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know"
"I don't know" is not a useful response. Your protocol can do nothing with it.

Quote:
And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).
If you do another test I will again try to "hear" your number and participate if I feel the slightest inclination to choose a particular number.

Quote:
Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility,
As long as you do so before you know whether I've picked the correct number I care not how or why you do it.

Quote:
your opinions seem to vary


Quote:
Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others.
Indeed.

Quote:
I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it).


Quote:
One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.
Don't abandon the single improvement that made your protocol approach the required rigor as soon as it's clear it's not giving the answer you want, would be my first suggestion.
__________________
"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, 07:21 AM   #345
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know":
. And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).
Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility, your opinions seem to vary (although you seem to be a careful person). It is not my goal to try to impose a certain point of view to others here, especially if it is wrong, people are entitled to their free opinions. I see myself as a "scientist" and a truthseeker. Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others. I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it). If I do a rigorous test again on this forum, I will probably emphasize more that, if the text sent to the assistant is any different from the posted one, the answer will be considered as protocol violating (although it will still be considered with great interest). One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.
I said "I don't know" and you didn't even consider my answer at all.
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 07:56 AM   #346
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Not sure what you mean by that. What statement?

I thought that would have been obvious from the consistent use of that term elsewhere in that post:
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
...
If telepathic reception is not something we are consciously aware of, we would have to pull the answer from our unconscious. This is the element of writing the first statement that comes to mind about the first number that comes to mind. If your mind is in sync with Michel's at that time, he will register a high credibility for your statement and if his theory is correct, the high credibility for the statement will cooralate with the correctness of the number.

...

But I'm going to rain on your and Michel's parade and say right now that there is no way that the JREF MDC would ever accept this test. The problem is that there can be a cooralation between the statement and the number contained in the statement that would allow the claimant to score better than chance and there is no way to separate these two elements.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 07:58 AM   #347
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Randi has a perfectly valid test for dowsing. Why don't all the applicants just take that test instead of mucking about with designing their own protocol?


The answer is that not all the applicants are claiming to be able to dowse.
It doesn't matter what the super power claim is, every applicant has failed. What does that tell you?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 08:18 AM   #348
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
I thought that would have been obvious from the consistent use of that term elsewhere in that post
Sorry, I was expressing (badly) general bewilderment, I'll try again.

Please give an example of how a statement might correlate with a number within it in a way which would allow the claimant to score better than chance. I don't understand how that would work.
__________________
"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, 08:19 AM   #349
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.

I stated my concern that this test would never be acceptable by the JREF MDC. But I will help you develope your test to pass muster with the JREF skeptics.

My first suggestion is to eliminate the possibility of the subjects sending different messages. Have the subjects send only one statement including the received number to the trusted assistant by PM and let the trusted assistant mask the number before forwarding the set of statements to you. You then post the set of statements along with the CR score you assigned to each. Then the trusted assistant posts the complete statements with the unmasked number and your assigned CR score.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 08:30 AM   #350
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Sorry, I was expressing (badly) general bewilderment, I'll try again.

Please give an example of how a statement might correlate with a number within it in a way which would allow the claimant to score better than chance. I don't understand how that would work.

I'm tempted to just say I was mistaken and let Michal get on with his test. But I am too honest for that.

I'll give you three:
"I'm seeing a square with the number xx."
"I'm thinking of patriotic colors and the number xx.
"xx is the loneliest number."
These are of course obvious cases.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 08:37 AM   #351
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
I'll give you three:
"I'm seeing a square with the number xx."
"I'm thinking of patriotic colors and the number xx.
"xx is the loneliest number."
Ah right, got you (at last ). Allowing free form statements enables posters to (deliberately or inadvertently) include such clues.
__________________
"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, 08:45 AM   #352
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
It doesn't matter what the super power claim is, every applicant has failed. What does that tell you?

So you would test Michal by handing him a pair of bent wires and asking him to prove his claim by finding water?
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 08:53 AM   #353
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Ah right, got you (at last ). Allowing free form statements enables posters to (deliberately or inadvertently) include such clues.

Exactly. If Michal continued to experiment with this protocol he would have eventually developed the skill to pick up on those clues. It would have been fun to watch the skeptics bafflement as they see a paranormal ability demonstrated in front of them but it would be only a magic trick. And, if Michal didn't know it was a trick it would be detrimental to him.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 09:09 AM   #354
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,857
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Exactly. If Michal continued to experiment with this protocol he would have eventually developed the skill to pick up on those clues. It would have been fun to watch the skeptics bafflement as they see a paranormal ability demonstrated in front of them but it would be only a magic trick. And, if Michal didn't know it was a trick it would be detrimental to him.
I think I have a little more respect for my fellow JREF posters than you do. I would certainly have been careful not to include such clues if I had participated, and I'm sure that if anyone had done so inadvertently at least one poster would have noticed and pointed it out quite quickly.

But I think you're right that the possibility would be enough for JREF to consider the protocol inadequate for the MDC.
__________________
"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, 09:19 AM   #355
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
I said "I don't know" and you didn't even consider my answer at all.
Well, you said:
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
I don't get what this test is supposed to find. Are you testing to see if anybody who responds is telepathic, or is this a test of your own ability to project some sort of vision to potential telepaths?

My answer is I don't know.
, and I didn't find it important to comment on your answer in the final analysis of this test, which focused more on people who provided numerical answers. Your answer was valid, though, because you answered one of the five valid possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4 and "I don't know". Perhaps, in another test, I shall try to comment more on answers by people who answered "I don't know" (if any).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 09:25 AM   #356
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, you said:

, and I didn't find it important to comment on your answer in the final analysis of this test, which focused more on people who provided numerical answers. Your answer was valid, though, because you answered one of the five valid possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4 and "I don't know". Perhaps, in another test, I shall try to comment more on answers by people who answered "I don't know" (if any).
What you would have to do is include those in your hit/miss percentages.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 09:43 AM   #357
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Exactly. If Michal continued to experiment with this protocol he would have eventually developed the skill to pick up on those clues. It would have been fun to watch the skeptics bafflement as they see a paranormal ability demonstrated in front of them but it would be only a magic trick. And, if Michal didn't know it was a trick it would be detrimental to him.
My first name is Michel, not Michal, Dan.
When I saw that Hokulele had answered:
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
The first number that came to my attention is xx, so that is my choice for this test.
, I was concerned because "2" was the first number in my opening post:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Hi, I invite you to participate in a new telepathy test.

At about 20:17 on this Monday October 21 (Brussels, Belgium time), I wrote carefully ...
, and also the "target" of this test. But the number she had chosen to answer was actually a "1", not a "2".
It is true that the text participants write should never give away their number. They should not write e.g. :
My answer is xx, a square has xx equal sides.
But that's fairly obvious, I think. It is possible that Hokulele actually never intended to allude to the first "2" in my opening post.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 09:50 AM   #358
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
What you would have to do is include those in your hit/miss percentages.
No, Hokulele, I think I have to politely disagree
The "hits" are the answers equal to "2" (in this test), while the "misses" are the answers equal to "1", "3" or "4". Answers "I don't know" are neither hits nor misses.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 09:52 AM   #359
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, Hokulele, I think I have to politely disagree
The "hits" are the answers equal to "2" (in this test), while the "misses" are the answers equal to "1", "3" or "4". Answers "I don't know" are neither hits nor misses.

If you are testing whether or not you successfully communicated with someone telepathically, "I don't know" is a clear miss.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th November 2013, 10:03 AM   #360
Michel H
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,205
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
If you are testing whether or not you successfully communicated with someone telepathically, "I don't know" is a clear miss.
Not, not necessarily a clear miss, because the answer may not be credible, and the person may have lied.
The hit rate corresponding to chance alone (no telepathy) should be equal to 25%, in a four-possibility test, and should not depend upon the number of people who answered "I don't know". You can then assess how (un)successful you have been by comparing your hit rate to 25%, you can no longer do that if you put the {I don't know}s in your hit rate.

Last edited by Michel H; 13th November 2013 at 10:22 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 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.