IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

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


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

Reply
Old 2nd November 2022, 10:41 AM   #2521
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,227
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
You're skewing the test results in your favor by limiting participants to four sentences/answers. On top on that, you're giving them them the answers to choose from.
This is not ostensibly a problem. In the classic Zener card deck, for example, the participants have to choose from a small, well-defined set of drawn figures--five figures, five of each in a deck of 25. Later we can go down the rabbit hole of all the ways one could cheat at Zener guessing. But those aside, it's a valid test. The question is simply whether the guesses statistically fit an expected distribution. Having a finite set of possible outcomes allows us to create that model. Your suggestion does that too.

Having given the example of the Zener deck, I want to shift to a simpler protocol using a different variable. A typical Zener run does have a well-defined statistical basis, but it's a poor example for trying to explain the concept. It's not intuitive. So I'll pick one that is.

Consider instead a fair six-sided die. A single trial is a single fair throw of the die. The conductor throws the die, and visualizes the result. Separately, out of sight, the participant tries to guess which number came up on the die. In the single trial, the null hypothesis says the participant should guess correctly 1 out of every six times. Or rather, that the naked probability of a correct guess is p = 1/6.

But to test properly in statistics, we need a distribution. So we define a run as 60 trials. The score for that run is the number of times the participant correctly guessed the die number. In theory it will be 10 if the null holds. But in practice, even under the null, the scores from a series of runs will form a normal distribution around 10. Getting to that normal distribution is what's important.

We could define a run as 6 (cluster around 1), or as 600 trials (cluster around 100). The former gives us too few degrees of freedom. The distribution will cluster around 1, but since the numbers in the vicinity are 0, 1, and 2, it will be hard to see whether the actual experimental distribution fits the curve or not. 600 (clustered around 100) will let the data vary a lot more smoothly, but would probably be onerous for the participant. So let's say 60.

But we need more than one run. We might end up doing a large number of total trials, but they could be, say, 20 runs of 60 trials each. That gives us 20 data points for this participant. Then we try to fit the experimental data to a standard normal distribution with a mean of 10. If the result is p < 0.05 that the correctly parameterized normal curve can still explain the experimental data, then we will have shown a scientifically significant effect.1

We won't have proven ESP. We will simply have shown that there is an effect that we can then study further. Michel isn't even to that stage. With proper controls in place, and a defensible (if simplistic) statistical model, he can't show that there is an effect. Without an effect to explain, it's meaningless to think about any possible cause.
_______________________
1 But in this case the effect we're interested in is a shift in the μ > 10 direction. A shift in the other direction would possibly indicate a problem in the protocol. This is the correct way to diagnose methodology problems by looking at the results, not navel-gazing at subjective "credibility."
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2022, 12:06 PM   #2522
KAJ
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
<snip>
But to test properly in statistics, we need a distribution. So we define a run as 60 trials. The score for that run is the number of times the participant correctly guessed the die number. In theory it will be 10 if the null holds. But in practice, even under the null, the scores from a series of runs will form a normal distribution around 10. Getting to that normal distribution is what's important.

We could define a run as 6 (cluster around 1), or as 600 trials (cluster around 100). The former gives us too few degrees of freedom. The distribution will cluster around 1, but since the numbers in the vicinity are 0, 1, and 2, it will be hard to see whether the actual experimental distribution fits the curve or not. 600 (clustered around 100) will let the data vary a lot more smoothly, but would probably be onerous for the participant. So let's say 60.

But we need more than one run. We might end up doing a large number of total trials, but they could be, say, 20 runs of 60 trials each. That gives us 20 data points for this participant. Then we try to fit the experimental data to a standard normal distribution with a mean of 10.
In statistics the phrases "normal distribution" and "standard normal distribution" have meanings different from your usage - see Wikipedia. Your example(s) would be expected to fit binomial distributions (Bernoulli for n = 1), perhaps approximated by Poisson distributions. [/pedant]
KAJ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2022, 01:54 PM   #2523
Startz
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by KAJ View Post
In statistics the phrases "normal distribution" and "standard normal distribution" have meanings different from your usage - see Wikipedia. Your example(s) would be expected to fit binomial distributions (Bernoulli for n = 1), perhaps approximated by Poisson distributions. [/pedant]
But an average of the number of successful guesses is approximately normal if we are talking about a reasonable sized sample.
Startz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2022, 02:52 PM   #2524
KAJ
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by Startz View Post
But an average of the number of successful guesses is approximately normal if we are talking about a reasonable sized sample.
Approximately Wikipedia. But the binomial is easy to use and exact for the null hypothesis. It is very inappropriate to use an approximate distribution to test a null hypothesis when the exact distribution is available.
KAJ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2022, 10:34 AM   #2525
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,227
Originally Posted by KAJ View Post
Your example(s) would be expected to fit binomial distributions (Bernoulli for n = 1), perhaps approximated by Poisson distributions. [/pedant]
Originally Posted by KAJ View Post
Approximately Wikipedia. But the binomial is easy to use and exact for the null hypothesis. It is very inappropriate to use an approximate distribution to test a null hypothesis when the exact distribution is available.
Yes, thanks, you are correct: the example must use a discrete distribution. This is not actually an example I invented, but my recollection of an actual statistical model used in telekinesis research. I tried to find the original paper, but it's been too long. I thought it Jeffers' double-slit experiments, but that model is wildly different. The original paper did use a normal distribution, and now I recall that it's because the authors performed a normalizing transformation on the run outcomes that resulted in a real-valued set of means. That's not the case here: the means are countable data.

For a single run we can use the binomial distribution. Here n is somewhat large, but p is not especially small, so we should probably not look to any of the convergent behavior in any of the discrete distributions. If the experiment consisted only of a single run, we could indeed use the binomial test and reason about the statistical significance directly in that fashion. However, the practical design of the original experiment broke it up into multiple runs for various sound methodology reasons. It also had the side-effect of allowing for greater variance, albeit at the cost of requiring a second step to the model for aggregating the results.

My set of means is still discrete values, since it is count data. Ideally I should tweak the number of trials in the individual runs to give a suitably large λ at this stage for the Poisson distribution, allowing us greater variance. This is the statistical advantage. But it requires each run to have the same n, which was not the case in the original study I'm (badly) abstracting to make a point. In the original study the normalization step was required because run size was governed by limits on the protocol, apparatus, and participant factors, and needed to vary.

By the way, your correction was not pedantic. It was an elementary error that you caught and corrected. Thank you for pointing it out. The lesson is that this is how science works. We put something out there, and our peers correct us. A conscientious scientist doesn't argue with the plainly-evident facts. A conscientious scientist is concerned not with ego or personal reputation, but solely with getting the facts right -- and in this case, getting the protocol and model right. A conscientious scientist doesn't try to argue in vain around the criticism, or make excuses aimed at trying "somehow" to still be right. I was wrong and you were right, and you spoke up.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2022, 12:21 PM   #2526
LongFuzzy
Critical Thinker
 
LongFuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I was wrong and you were right, and you spoke up.
Does he get a T-shirt?
LongFuzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2022, 12:28 PM   #2527
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,227
Originally Posted by LongFuzzy View Post
Does he get a T-shirt?
For obvious reasons, I don't have a say in who gets one.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2022, 12:30 PM   #2528
Startz
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 669
KAJ is certainly correct, and since it's just as easy to use the binomial why not? And you both provide an example or a constructive scientific discussion that might serve as a useful model to others.

As a note, if the probability of a hit is 25% and we run 60 trials, then according to the binomial we expect that 95% of the time we'll see between 9 and 22 hits. If we used the normal approximation, we would have said between 8.42 and 21.57 hits.
Startz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2022, 01:13 PM   #2529
KAJ
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
<snip> I was wrong and you were right, and you spoke up.
Graciously said, thanks!
KAJ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 02:34 PM   #2530
Michel H
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,163
I remind you of my latest test:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I recently wrote (and circled), on a piece of paper beside me, one of the following four sentences:
(1) Russia withdraws from conquered territories since February.
(2) Crimea and the people's republics belong to Russia.
(3) Ukraine doesn't join NATO.
(4) Sanctions are lifted, trade resumes normally.

I ask you to tell me which of these four statements I wrote.

It was selected by means of this random number generator: https://www.random.org/integers/, all four texts have equal probabilities.
which hasn't received a single answer so far.

A nearly identical test on Spiritual Forums: https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...d.php?t=145202 has already received 3 interesting answers.

Three interesting answers in a similar test (but without the four sentences) have also been given on Psience Quest, a specialized forum devoted to Parapsychology: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thre...er-did-i-write.

The first response was given by Ninshub, one of the administrators of this forum, a honor for me.

By participating to this test, you can contribute, not only to Science, but also perhaps to Peace in the world, and, as you know, we live in a time when peace is very much needed.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 04:08 PM   #2531
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,642
There is no science here whatsoever. You have proved this quite clearly with the methodology and the treatment of the results.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 04:57 PM   #2532
junkshop
Graduate Poster
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 1,417
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I remind you of my latest test:

which hasn't received a single answer so far...
Shocking news. It's almost like everyone has had enough of your repetitive nonsense.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...Three interesting answers in a similar test (but without the four sentences) have also been given on Psience Quest, a specialized forum devoted to Parapsychology: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thre...er-did-i-write.

The first response was given by Ninshub, one of the administrators of this forum, a honor for me...
That's nice for you. Does Ninshub's role as an administrator lend more weight to their answer?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...By participating to this test, you can contribute, not only to Science, but also perhaps to Peace in the world, and, as you know, we live in a time when peace is very much needed.
Bollocks.
__________________
Not a Cockney, but possibly Australian...I am Dick Van Dyke.
junkshop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 06:20 PM   #2533
Michel H
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,163
Originally Posted by junkshop View Post
That's nice for you. Does Ninshub's role as an administrator lend more weight to their answer?
Possibly, yes.

I remember that one of the admins of this forum (I mean, Psience Quest) has already given a good answer to one of my tests in the past (however, I don't remember if this admin was Ninshub or another one).

And you certainly remember the famous answer given by one of the mods of this forum (when it was still called the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation, and was less radically skeptical).

On this forum, arthwollipot, who gave a correct answer to a similar test a few months ago, has also had an administration job on another forum.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 06:22 PM   #2534
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 79,891
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
On this forum, arthwollipot, who gave a correct answer to a similar test a few months ago, has also had an administration job on another forum.
I repudiate that answer and refuse to participate in any further so-called "tests" until you start following proper scientific procedure.
__________________
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 06:40 PM   #2535
Michel H
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,163
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I repudiate that answer and refuse to participate in any further so-called "tests" until you start following proper scientific procedure.
This reminds me of somebody (a famous mod).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 07:26 PM   #2536
junkshop
Graduate Poster
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: in the kitchen
Posts: 1,417
Originally Posted by junkshop View Post
...Does Ninshub's role as an administrator lend more weight to their answer?
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Possibly, yes...
How so?
__________________
Not a Cockney, but possibly Australian...I am Dick Van Dyke.
junkshop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 07:29 PM   #2537
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 79,891
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This reminds me of somebody (a famous mod).
Whose name you keep dragging through the mud in an attempt to score points, yes.
__________________
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2022, 09:48 PM   #2538
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 15,140
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I remind you of my latest test:

which hasn't received a single answer so far.
I remind you of the reason for that: because it stopped being funny when we realised you could not detect sarcasm.

Only one of your tests was taken remotely seriously here, the one where we persuaded you to use a protocol that met the minimum standards of the scientific method. All the others were jokes.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 01:58 AM   #2539
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,646
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I remind you of my latest test:

which hasn't received a single answer so far.
So you're claiming 100% of responses were correct, right?

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 08:03 AM   #2540
kali1137
Master Poster
 
kali1137's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Purgatory, PA
Posts: 2,448
At this point everyone sees through your "tests". There is nothing to be gained here for you or any of us. I would recommend you stop unless you become willing/capable of an honest test.
kali1137 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 08:15 AM   #2541
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 22,227
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
By participating to this test, you can contribute, not only to Science...
No. Your method is the antithesis of science.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2022, 09:10 AM   #2542
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,184
Originally Posted by kali1137 View Post
At this point everyone sees through your "tests". There is nothing to be gained here for you or any of us. I would recommend you stop unless you become willing/capable of an honest test.
My guess is that he quite literally can not stop- it's part of his problem- and can not conduct or submit to an honest, objective test, that would be to discard an identity he needs for self-affirmation.

But, what the hell- maybe the horse will learn to sing (cf. The Mote In God's Eye). The horse (of course) being Michel, though I'm sure he'd like to think otherwise.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

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 08:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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