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 26th September 2013, 05:14 PM   #441
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
19)
In my previous analysis, I said:

, and I need to keep my criteria fairly constant on this forum.
Writing |eiπ| for just "1" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolut...omplex_numbers , if needed) is odd, it's an element which makes this answer look suspicious to me.
CR=-5, QR=60.
Are you questioning my motives? That's pretty dishonest of you. I give you a CR of -10.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe 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 26th September 2013, 07:02 PM   #442
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,315
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

In the previous test ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com...40#post8607740 ), I found a {correct answer} rate equal to 100% for credible answers.
Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.


I won't complain about my low credibility rating. After all such complaints would be prima facie evidence of my low credibility.
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Secondly, I believe that, like high dilution homeopathy, "remote viewing" and precognition are probably impossible because there is no possible physical mechanism for them.
Bravo. I salute you.
Very few people trying to prove the existence of ESP would have the fortitude to come right out and say that. You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.

If you are ever invited to speak at a conference for psychic powers and phenomena, will you post the dates on this board? I really want to be there when you say, "OK, all you remote viewing folks and precognition folks - I want to say that you've got nothing; so quit wasting our time with something that has no possible mechanism. Now, I'd like to speak about my unimpeachable ESP evidence."

One last question about credibility ratings. If a subject provides a number in a very credible-sounding post, but several days later says uncredible things about the procedure, does that person get a high or low credibility score?

OK, one more question. If you ever run the test again, will you take note of all the posters who pointed out that asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 is quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomena?

Once, again. Congratulations.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig 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 26th September 2013, 09:28 PM   #443
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,469
Deleted, because I can.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 26th September 2013 at 09:39 PM.
Aridas 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 27th September 2013, 12:25 AM   #444
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
TL;DR

Edited to add: Michel H, you have no knowledge of what science is about.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 27th September 2013 at 12:28 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 27th September 2013, 06:06 AM   #445
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
TL;DR

Edited to add: Michel H, you have no knowledge of what science is about.
I think he hopes that fact will get lost in all the verbiage.
desertgal 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 27th September 2013, 07:26 AM   #446
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Michel H, here is precisely why your analysis and credibility ratings are a load of feces.

From your first "test":

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
<snippage>

Jodie's answer:

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
three
(click on the little red arrow to go to the post, to see her avatar).
This answer is very minimal. The total absence of any comment might indicate something to hide, or a small level of aggressivity. I find the expression on her face (if it's a photo of her) slightly aggressive, CR=-1.

And from your latest "test":

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
<snippage>

11)

Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
4.
This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

CR=5, QR=80.

So if an answer is brief but wrong, there is "something to hide". If it is brief but correct, it gets a pass. The fact that the same type of answer can get wildly different credibility ratings just goes to prove that you will say anything to justify the hits, and anything to discredit the misses.

Garbage.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

Last edited by Hokulele; 27th September 2013 at 07:30 AM.
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 27th September 2013, 10:36 AM   #447
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
I think the numeric results (6,5,6,5) are suspiciously even; too even...

The 'credibility analysis' is a classic example of pseudo-scientific straw-clutching.

Giving obviously sarcastic responses higher credibility than clearly honest, serious and well-researched responses (like my own ), is selective bias of the worst kind... it's just bollocks.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th September 2013, 10:48 AM   #448
IXP
Graduate Poster
 
IXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,395
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
17).
IXP said:
, and added later:

He/she said that he/she was getting interferences from other universes, and that he/she thought the most common guess won't be the number I wrote down. So, this answer doesn't seem reliable.
CR=-2, QR=60.


18)
This answer of abaddon is somewhat obscure, and doesn't seem directly related to telepathy. I other words, he said he answered 3 "to bring balance", not because he perceived it via ESP.
CR=-5, QR=60.
Boy, did you get that wrong.

I actually picked my number completely in the spirit of the test. I concentrated on it and answered with the number that came to mind. I should, therefore have been rated

CR = 5, QR = 100

The second comment was an attempt at humor, but I can see where you would not understand that.

IXP
__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar
IXP 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 27th September 2013, 01:05 PM   #449
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,315
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post

The 'credibility analysis' is a classic example of pseudo-scientific straw-clutching.
I disagree.
I think the CR is so absurd that it doesn't even rise to the level of pseudo-science.

................

A follow-up question for Michel P.
Is it possible for you to teach CR-system to a friend or relative and then have that person do the CR analysis before that person learns which answer is correct?

Also, I noticed that while there were a few -10s, there were not any +10s. Can you give an example of what a +10 response would look like?

Also, what would you do if the receiver honestly and sincerely believed that he had a strong and clear answer of 5?
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 27th September 2013 at 01:13 PM.
Ladewig 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 27th September 2013, 04:24 PM   #450
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
... If a subject provides a number in a very credible-sounding post, but several days later says uncredible things about the procedure, does that person get a high or low credibility score? ...
If, in the same test, and before I do the analysis, a member of this forum first writes a very credible post, and writes later a horrible post, very critical (and unfairly) of the procedure, I think this person will get a negative credibility, but probably not CR = -10, because I would take the first post into account.
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 27th September 2013, 05:05 PM   #451
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
... If you ever run the test again, will you take note of all the posters who pointed out that asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 is quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomena? ...
I don't remember that even a single member ever said that "asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 was quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomenon", although there has been criticism. What exactly don't you like in this method? Would you prefer a number from 1 to 5? Or Zener cards ? People sometimes think that increasing the number of choice possibilities (from exemple, from 4 to 5, or to 100) will lead to better results, but that's not necessarily true. People who are ready to reluctantly acknowledge that they know I wrote a "4" are not necessarily ready to admit they know I wrote a "74". The situation I am (and we are) dealing with here is a situation with people with great (telepathic) ability (in the context of an exceptional phenomenon [?]), but generally low motivation in these tests (if I understand correctly).
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 27th September 2013, 05:38 PM   #452
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
Michel, since you have returned to this thread, you really do need to respond to this:

Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Michel H, here is precisely why your analysis and credibility ratings are a load of feces.

From your first "test":




And from your latest "test":




So if an answer is brief but wrong, there is "something to hide". If it is brief but correct, it gets a pass. The fact that the same type of answer can get wildly different credibility ratings just goes to prove that you will say anything to justify the hits, and anything to discredit the misses.

Garbage.
In your first "test", the answer "three" with no other words was deemed to you to be unreliable. In the second "test", "4" with no other words was taken to be evidence of telepathy.

The simple fact is, you got a random result from a stupidly random test, and then made up stuff to "prove" that you are telepathic. Absolutely pathetic method with totally predictable results.

Norm
fromdownunder 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 27th September 2013, 06:44 PM   #453
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
I'm still trying to get over the accusation that my guess was made from an insane asylum. I get thoughts like that every day. Doesn't everybody?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 27th September 2013, 07:40 PM   #454
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,469
welshdean's got a -5 for fairly spurious reasons, too. Magic number is a figure of speech, usually, these days.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas 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 27th September 2013, 08:31 PM   #455
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,315
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't remember that even a single member ever said that "asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 was quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomenon", although there has been criticism. What exactly don't you like in this method? Would you prefer a number from 1 to 5? Or Zener cards ? People sometimes think that increasing the number of choice possibilities (from exemple, from 4 to 5, or to 100) will lead to better results, but that's not necessarily true. People who are ready to reluctantly acknowledge that they know I wrote a "4" are not necessarily ready to admit they know I wrote a "74". The situation I am (and we are) dealing with here is a situation with people with great (telepathic) ability (in the context of an exceptional phenomenon [?]), but generally low motivation in these tests (if I understand correctly).

Fascinating.

I wish I could stop reading this thread, but you keep coming up with stuff like this and I find myself addicted.

......................
ETA:
I am ready for another fix.

Upon rereading the thread, I cannot tell if you are asserting that you are among the very best telepathic transmitters or if you are the only telepathic transmitter. Would you clarify, please?
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 27th September 2013 at 08:46 PM.
Ladewig 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 27th September 2013, 08:49 PM   #456
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,819
Snooooooze.
LashL 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 28th September 2013, 03:33 AM   #457
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,702
Michel, fromdownunder's post above demonstrates that your 'credibility' method above is being influenced by your knowledge of whether the answer given matches the number you thought of.

If you must do this 'credibility' nonsense, as unscientific as it is, then you should do it blinded to whether the answer matches your number or not. One way to do that would be for you to decide on a number, give the hash (not the number) to a trusted forum member by PM, forum members who want to take part should PM that same person with their guesses. When sufficient guesses are received, the guesses can be posted with an X replacing the number. You can do your 'credibility' analysis and only after that, the numbers can be revealed.

However, none of this will be any evidence for or against telepathy.
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 2nd October 2013, 03:00 PM   #458
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Michel H, you have logged on quite recently, but haven't commented further. Do you plan to address the fatal flaws in your methodology? As it appears now, you simply seem to be hoping that the awkward questions will just go away if you ignore them long enough.
__________________
"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 2nd October 2013, 04:00 PM   #459
Femke
Goddess of the Glowing Sunsets
 
Femke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Michel, fromdownunder's post above demonstrates that your 'credibility' method above is being influenced by your knowledge of whether the answer given matches the number you thought of.

If you must do this 'credibility' nonsense, as unscientific as it is, then you should do it blinded to whether the answer matches your number or not. One way to do that would be for you to decide on a number, give the hash (not the number) to a trusted forum member by PM, forum members who want to take part should PM that same person with their guesses. When sufficient guesses are received, the guesses can be posted with an X replacing the number. You can do your 'credibility' analysis and only after that, the numbers can be revealed.

However, none of this will be any evidence for or against telepathy.
Michel,
I offer myself as a blinder: you can PM me the hash, and I am willing to receive the answers from members who want to participate. After a previously arranged period of time I will provide a list of their answers, verbatim with an X for the number. You can then post the credibility rating, and afterwards I will provide the actual numbers.
__________________
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 3rd October 2013, 01:20 PM   #460
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Michel H, here is precisely why your analysis and credibility ratings are (* not convincing).

From your first "test":
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
<snippage>

Jodie's answer:

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
three
(click on the first little red arrow to go to the post, to see her avatar).
This answer is very minimal. The total absence of any comment might indicate something to hide, or a small level of aggressivity. I find the expression on her face (if it's a photo of her) slightly aggressive, CR=-1.
And from your latest "test":
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

<snippage>

11)

Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
4.
This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

CR=5, QR=80.
So if an answer is brief but wrong, there is "something to hide". If it is brief but correct, it gets a pass. The fact that the same type of answer can get wildly different credibility ratings just goes to prove that you will say anything to justify the hits, and anything to discredit the misses.

... .
Hokulele, please be polite in your posts on this forum.
You have quoted me in an incomplete way.
I did not just say (in the analysis for the second test):
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

...

11)

Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
4.
This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:

CR=5, QR=80.
What I really said was:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

...

11)

Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
4.
This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...
CR=5, QR=80.
The important sentence I wrote: "A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable." has unfortunately been omitted in your quote from my analysis.

The main reason why I gave a clearly positive credibility (CR=5) to gabeygoat, after having given a slightly negative credibility to Jodie in the first test (CR=-1, negative, but close the the positive credibility zone ]0,10] ) was the fact that my initial question, my opening post was different in the second test, and I view the change I made in the initial post as important.

The opening post of the first test was:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Hi, I invite you to participate in a simple telepathy test.

At about 16:39 on this Thursday August 9 (Brussels, Belgium time),
...

A comment might also be useful.

Thank you for participating.

...
Then, Jodie answered:
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
three
, and I said in the analysis, about this answer :
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
This answer is very minimal. The total absence of any comment might indicate something to hide, or a small level of aggressivity. I find the expression on her face (if it's a photo of her) slightly aggressive, CR=-1.
...
In this first test, I had received 13 valid numerical answers, and she was the only answerer who had not written the slightest little comment, or the slightest little text I could use to try to assess her credibility, when I did the analysis, even though I had said "A comment might also be useful." in the initial post.

In the beginning of the second test, I said:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Hi, I would like to invite you to participate in a (new) simple telepathy test.
...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...
So, I replaced the sentence "A comment might also be useful." by "A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.", in the initial, opening post of the second test. I did this because, about four months before, I had done another test, on another forum, where I noticed that all (numerically) correct and credible answers were very brief, with (almost) no text or comment, while answers with longer comments were either incorrect, or (in one case) correct but not credible. So, I felt that these brief answers were important, and that, while comments were very useful, I should also try to get across the message that very brief answers were acceptable too.

Then, in this second test, gabeygoat answered:
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
4.
and I said, in the analysis (about this answer):
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
This (correct) answer is very brief, but I said in my opening post:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
...
A comment might be useful, but is not indispensable.
...
CR=5, QR=80.
...
, as mentioned above.
The higher credibility CR=+5 was consistent with my message "short answers are ok in this second test".
Obviously, two identical answers can get different credibility ratings in tests 1 and 2, if the opening post of test 1 is (significantly) different from the opening post of test 2.

Note: it may be of interest to try to go a little further in the analysis, and to compare to each other, for exemple, all three "very brief" answers (answers consisting of just the number "guessed", with no accompanying text, either in the post where the numeric guess is given, or later in the thread, but before my analysis) which were given in the two tests I have done so far in this forum.
Jodie answered (incorrectly), in the first test:
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
three
In the second test, gabeygoat answered (correctly):
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
4.
while DuvalHMFIC responded (correctly also):
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
4.
When I wrote and circled my numbers to "telepathically guess" on my sheet of paper, I wrote them in "digit form" ("2", or "4" in the cases of these two tests), not in "word form" ("two" or "four"), as was suggested by my two initial posts, and, interestingly, the two correct answerers also responded in digit form, the form I used myself, but not Jodie, who was incorrect. In addition, both correct answerers ended their responses with a full stop/period (this may reflect a desire to be careful in the answer), but not "incorrect" Jodie (even though her answer was a little longer). This modest additional analysis seems therefore to confirm, once again, the validity of the "credibility" approach adopted here. It also does suggest that answerers responded in a careful (and, perhaps, carefully calculated) way ("in a certain sense"), there may have be a conscious desire by many to give a "clue", to alert about the incorrectness of their answers, so that their answers become more "morally acceptable" to them.
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 3rd October 2013, 01:24 PM   #461
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
That is nothing more than post hoc justification of an arbitrary scoring mechanism. Until you do the test with proper blinding, or give complete and binding criteria up front, this only proves you are convinced you are telepathic, not that you actually are such.
__________________
"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 3rd October 2013, 01:57 PM   #462
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,769
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
That is nothing more than post hoc justification of an arbitrary scoring mechanism.
And even if it wasn't (as I'm sure Michel would argue that it wasn't) he has no way of proving that it wasn't.

Which is why Agatha's blinding suggestion is such a good one.
Jack by the hedge 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 April 2014, 11:30 PM   #463
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,257
Wrong thread.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Pixel42; 12th April 2014 at 11:32 PM.
Pixel42 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 8th November 2021, 08:59 AM   #464
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,016
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
welshdean's got a -5 for fairly spurious reasons, too.
Having seen his rugby predictions I think, if anything, -5 is a generous psychic score.

Michael I think your methodology is too elaborate. Can I suggest a tweak that makes it even more impressive. Ask someone to pick a number between one and ten. Get them to post their answer to which you reply "Yes that was the number I was thinking of" 100% success rate guaranteed and of just as much value as your test.
Lothian 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 8th November 2021, 09:33 AM   #465
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,529
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Michael I think your methodology is too elaborate. Can I suggest a tweak that makes it even more impressive. Ask someone to pick a number between one and ten. Get them to post their answer to which you reply "Yes that was the number I was thinking of" 100% success rate guaranteed and of just as much value as your test.
This would not have been possible, because of the MD5 hash (an anti-cheating measure):
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
the number I wrote and circled was a "4".

And the complicated sentence whose MD5 hash is given above is:
The number to guess is 4 bc669c68ad3fb8f3b29b4f446b898261 85467fc0440e63a8fea502c8c2cff4c.
It is likely that, like most people who criticize my work, you actually didn't read my analyses carefully (also, it is probably better to post in the most recent thread).
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 8th November 2021, 09:47 AM   #466
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,016
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This would not have been possible, because of the MD5 hash (an anti-cheating measure):

It is likely that, like most people who criticize my work, you actually didn't read my analyses carefully (also, it is probably better to post in the most recent thread).
I read your 'analysis'. Not quite as sophisticated as drawing rings round bullet holes in a barn.
You don't appear to have shown any recognition that your post hoc judging of predictions knowing whether they are right is fundamentally flawed.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2021, 12:10 PM   #467
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 14,702
Mod Info Please keep the discussion in the current thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=311777
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 12:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.