Startz
Muse
The point is that allows you to fully use your judgement about which answers are credible, while still satisfying your audience that the answers chosen are representative of the entire sample. Isn't that what you want?
New telepathy test, the sequel.
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
The point is that allows you to fully use your judgement about which answers are credible, while still satisfying your audience that the answers chosen are representative of the entire sample. Isn't that what you want?
The sentences that I could read in your method ("first part") might be a little strange, and I believe the existing tests already provide good evidence.
Startz
Muse
We know that you believe the existing tests provide good evidence. If you're satisfied with that, then there's no problem.
If you want others to believe as well, you need to conduct tests which convince them. I'm sure you understand that your tests have not convinced other people, even though you may believe that the other people are wrong.
My suggestion is for one such test whose purpose is to let you convince others.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
They provide good evidence that your guessing games would never get better than chance without using your biased and dishonest "credibility ratings".
Was there something else you were trying to prove?
Even if I am facing some difficulties convincing some members of this forum (who seem to be facing serious difficulties coming up with just one decent argument), this does not necessarily mean I would face difficulties having my results published in a scientific journal (though I have never tried, and this is not my current priority), and there other forums too: Spiritual Forums: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=22 , Skeptiko: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/ , Psiencequest.net: https://psiencequest.net/forums/for...-into-psi-phenomena-esp-pk-remote-viewing-etc , Yahoo Answers and so on.
I don't remember having seen serious and intelligent objections to my work. There is hopefully a difference between the jokes on this forum and a scientific referee (of Nature, for example).
Startz
Muse
I'm not sure I understand why you are arguing with people here then rather than submitting to a scientific journal, but, then, there are many things I don't understand.
Just my $0.02, but I rather doubt Nature would publish your evidence. Never published in Nature myself, closest I've come is publishing in Nature: Climate Change. Sorry if you don't find my suggestions helpful, maybe I better go back to writing a referee report for the paper on my desk.
Perhaps, yes. I believe the idea that somebody who is conducting an ESP test, in which he has a special interest, is completely unable to evaluate answers regarding credibility just because he knows whether the answers are correct or not (this actually plays very little role), this idea is wrong and stupid, and I would hope a serious referee would take a more moderate approach. And there is other evidence than tests too (testimonies, for example).
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Did you think your "four choice" guessing games with your biased "credibility ratings" would convince someone other than a child?
Perhaps they would convince a child, who would perhaps be far more intelligent (and honest) than many members of this forum (I wouldn't say all though, I have received some positive comments on this forum, for which I am grateful).
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Actually, an intelligent child would easily see through such an obviously false test. I'm pretty sure they would demand evidence of your honesty since it has been so sadly lacking in this thread.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
This would not provide any complications that I can foresee.
However, here is a simpler test:
You write down ten phrases, circle one and concentrate on it however best suits you. You list the phrases here. You post the MD5 hash of your phrase mixed with your name, Michel. (See below.) I will create a poll thread. Each person who wishes to participate shall vote anonymously in the poll and simply post in the thread the word "Voted." If they post anything else, their vote will automatically be disregarded. You may then post exactly which ohter members you would like to disregard for any reason no matter what they write. If you don't like me, for example, you simply say, 'Disregard Loss Leader," and my vote will be thrown out. Then you reveal your phrase (and the MD5 string you typed into the generator) and we see if you score better than chance.
To create your MD5 hash, go to md5hashgenerator.com and type in your phrase mixed with your name however you choose. If your phrase is "paper airplane" you could type "MpapICerairplHlaEneL" or "paMICperHaEirpLlane" or "MICHpaperELairplane" or any mixture of the phrase and your name you want. This will create so many possibilities that it would take a lifetime to brute force decoding of your phrase.
The whole thing could take 48 hours. I could set it up in a few minutes after I see your post here of ten phrases and your MD5 hash.
Not complicated from my standpoint, yours, or the members.
But I don't see here a possibility to evaluate answers credibility-wise (if people post just "Voted"). So, this doesn't seem suitable. I think that you are currently a little too obsessed about "rigor" issues on this forum. Just try to relax about this a little. I am a very rigorous little man. It would perhaps be difficult to find somebody more rigorous than me.
Startz
Muse
Loss Leader: Thanks for the improvements.
I'm missing one detail. Where do the poll takers tell us what they hear? It sounds like they just say "Voted."
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
That's an easy enough fix. Instead of "Voted", change the required answer to "I hear 1" "I hear 2" all the way up to 10. So, if that is your only excuse, I am happy to participate in such a Poll. I suspect most people following this thread would also be happy to join in.
Norm
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Okay, people can write whatever they like or, if you prefer, whatever you'd like them to say. Since the poll itself is anonymous, it changes nothing. If you'd just like a minimum requirement of 25 words, we can do that. All you have to do is tell me what you want from people so that you can examine their credibility. You tell me which people to discount for whatever reason you'd like or even no reason - whomever you want. Very simple.
In fact, it makes the test even easier.
They vote in the anonymous poll. After all votes are in (say 72 hours or however long Michel H wants) and Michel tells us whose votes to disregard, I subtract those people from the poll (in my head) and we get our final results. Then, I think, I can unblind the poll to reveal that I hadn't in some way cheated.
If someone insists they voted in a way inconsistent with my unblinded results, they can complain. However, since I physically cannot rig the voting in any case, it won't be necessary.
Startz
Muse
I don't think that's right. I think Loss Leader wants a setup where Michel H gets to decide about credibility before seeing if the responder got the answer right.
Do I have that right Los Leader?
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Did you read Loss Leaders proposed protocol? He designed a completely different test to yours.
In any event, the method you proposed has already been done either in this thread or an earlier incarnation. Once Michel discovered the outcomes of the test, which he did not like for obvious reasons (they gave him a lousy result) he did a re-evaluation of the text in the answers to change the result so that it looked better for him, although it was still not a whole lot better.
And then of course, he still has his fallback position - we do hear the correct answer, but lie about it in our responses.
Norm
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Absolutely.
This is a problem. Michel H would have to agree to the protocols and abide by the result. But no test under any condition would change his beliefs, as far as I can tell. And this one most likely won't, either. I predict that Michel will not agree to these protocols or agree not to contest the results.
But his fallback position is infallible. It cannot be falsified.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The "one decent argument" against Michel's tests is that they are deliberately designed to produce unreliable results which he can use to justify his unshakable belief in telepathy.
The only way to produce reliable results is to use the scientific method, but the only time we got him to do a test which was remotely scientific he still found a way to reinterpret the results (which of course were negative) after the fact.
The only way to produce reliable results is to use the scientific method, but the only time we got him to do a test which was remotely scientific he still found a way to reinterpret the results (which of course were negative) after the fact.
