New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Michel H]

Loss Leader wrote

When you ignore him, you greatly reduce your credibility.

I did not ignore him:

I see nothing wrong in your statistical analysis, JayUtah. But don't forget Loss Leader did not just write a number, he said:

and confirmed later:

and, by doing so, may have revealed a great deal about his mental processes (in spite of what he said later).

Keeping a purely statistical approach, what is the probability that a moderator on the prestigious James Randi Educational Foundation would say:

Probably very small, and this is one argument for rejecting the null hypothesis.

 

[JayUtah]

I did not ignore him:

You completely fail to take the statements he made into account. You simply insist that your interpretation of his original statements, motives, and "mental processes" must necessarily be correct. How is that not ignoring him?

 

[turingtest]

Keeping a purely statistical approach, what is the probability that a moderator on the prestigious James Randi Educational Foundation would say:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

Probably very small, and this is one argument for rejecting the null hypothesis.

That he would say those specific words? Probably very small, sure. That he would say something like that? Probably a much larger chance than would suit you.

(And I'd guess the probability that he wishes he'd never said anything like it at all is near 100%)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"Firstly participation"?

May I remind you that you have already given at least one decent answer in one of my tests? :

After a careful examination, your answer was found to be incorrect, and also non-credible.

You misunderstood me. I have no objection to people participating in your tests. But you have collected no useful evidence for telepathy and should not expect us to pretend that you have.

 

[Michel H]

You completely fail to take the statements he made into account. You simply insist that your interpretation of his original statements, motives, and "mental processes" must necessarily be correct. How is that not ignoring him?

I asked myself: "What is the probability that a moderator of the prestigious Randi Foundation?" would say such a thing if telepathy did not exist? Perhaps, say, 10^-6? (I don't know). You seem to have some trouble following the scientific reasoning here, in spite of a limited understanding on your part.

Perhaps later lies were related to a serious lack of ethical standards on skeptical forums (which is not helped by an avalanche of unnecessary aggressivity).

 

[Michel H]

That he would say those specific words? Probably very small, sure. That he would say something like that? Probably a much larger chance than would suit you.

(And I'd guess the probability that he wishes he'd never said anything like it at all is near 100%)

I think it is the substance that matters here, more than the specific words he used.

 

[JayUtah]

You seem to have some trouble following the scientific reasoning here...

There is no scientific reasoning in your post. You suggested there existed a number whose value you neither know nor can derive, and you suggested that it represented a statistical probability and that it should affect the p-value of your conclusion. That's both statistically invalid and methodologically invalid.

...in spite of a limited understanding on your part.

How often does this bluff work for you?

Perhaps later lies were related to a serious lack of ethical standards on skeptical forums (which is not helped by an avalanche of unnecessary aggressivity).

You got caught trying to fudge numbers and call it science. Calling your critics names only makes you look more unscientific. You claim you have a PhD in physics. Quit whining about others holding your feet to the fire.

 

[Michel H]

There is no scientific reasoning in your post. You suggested there existed a number whose value you neither know nor can derive, and you suggested that it represented a statistical probability and that it should affect the p-value of your conclusion. That's both statistically invalid and methodologically invalid.

I did mention a probability equal to perhaps 10^-6, and added "I don't know". I do not know the exact probability that a Randi mod would make and later confirm such extraordinary statements, the only thing I know (and that's what is important) is that such a probability is very small, much smaller than guessing 29 out of 30 possibilities.

 

[JayUtah]

I did mention a probability equal to perhaps 10^-6, and added "I don't know". I do not know the exact probability that a Randi mod would make and later confirm such extraordinary statements, the only thing I know (and that's what is important) is that such a probability is very small, much smaller than guessing 29 out of 30 possibilities.

No, you don't know any of that. You're trying to handwave around squishy, subjective concepts -- which in your case are convolved with your inability to interpret sarcasm -- and pretend you can quantify it in a statistically useful fashion.

No. That's not science. Not even a little bit.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I did not ignore him:

This statement has no credibility.

 

[Michel H]

No, you don't know any of that. You're trying to handwave around squishy, subjective concepts -- which in your case are convolved with your inability to interpret sarcasm -- and pretend you can quantify it in a statistically useful fashion.

No. That's not science. Not even a little bit.

This how (real and new) science works.

By the way, this is the abstract of my Ph.D. thesis: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhDT........87H/abstract .

I sometimes wonder if you have ever put your two feet in a college or an university in your whole life, in spite of your grotesque arrogance and lack of respect.

 

[JayUtah]

This how (real and new) science works.

No. You don't get to encode your subjective impressions of what you think other people intended as "probabilities" and use them to fix problems with your p-values.

I sometimes wonder if you have ever put your two feet in a college or an university in your whole life, in spite of your grotesque arrogance and lack of respect.

Physicist, heal thyself. By all means keep calling me names. It makes you seem so very much more scientific and professional.

 

[Pixel42]

As someone who has been reading Loss Leader's posts for many more years than Michel I can say with some confidence that the probability that he would respond to a test protocol as grossly unscientific as Michel's with sarcasm is approaching 100%.

It's how I would expect a large percentage of the sceptics here to respond, which they duly did. I was tempted to do the same, but managed to restrain myself.

 

[turingtest]

As someone who has been reading Loss Leader's posts for many more years than Michel I can say with some confidence that the probability that he would respond to a test protocol as grossly unscientific as Michel's with sarcasm is approaching 100%.

It's how I would expect a large percentage of the sceptics here to respond, which they duly did. I was tempted to do the same, but managed to restrain myself.

Something like this is what I was getting at. From Michel's emphasis, I guess that he thinks such sarcasm would somehow be unlikely from "a moderator on the prestigious James Randi Educational Foundation," just because of the moderator status, and/or that it would be against the rules (or at least the spirit) of the forum. Which tells me that he based his "probability" on not having researched the question enough to know neither thing is true- par for the woo course, to make a loose assumption and dignify it with a number as if it's an actual calculation. You can see this when he throws out the number ("10^-6"), Jay says "[t]here is no scientific reasoning in your post," and Michel just re-iterates the number, as if any number, some speciously specified conclusion, is all it takes to satisfy the requirements of rigorous reasoning.

 

[Gamolon]

Well, let's assume I have written and circled 29 on my paper, and I only reveal to you in a normal and sensory way (for example, on this forum) that I have written one of the thirty numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 28, 29, 30.

Suppose you tell me (correctly): "You wrote and circled '29' ". This would be a rather extraordinary feat, which "proves" telepathy in a much more convincing way than if you just guessed right in a four-possibility test, with a 25% chance of getting it right from pure chance alone.

Because, as I explained, there are other considerations which play a role: ease of the test (if people have actually only limited information through extra-sensory channels), and a possible desire to not reveal too much, perhaps for mental health protection for everybody.

Let me get this straight.

You want to do a test to prove telepathy, but don't want to CONVINCINGLY prove it?



The purpose of a more CONVINCING test is to remove as much "chance guessing" from it as possible. Your excuse NOT to have a more difficult test because YOU feel (not anyone else) people would not want to reveal too much. How about you let people look at your test and decide for themselves?

I personally think you want to make it "easier" so you get the results you want.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

I can't believe you guys are still feeding an obvious t***. He's not schizo, he's having fun at your expense at this point.

Carry on I guess?

 

[Michel H]

as if any number, ... is all it takes to satisfy the requirements of rigorous reasoning.

Yes, that's right, any (probability) number, provided it is very small. The probability that a moderator on the prestigious James Randi Educational Foundation, would say, as an answer to an online telepathy test:

I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

(a serious-sounding post, as opposed to a sarcastic one, as some skeptics are trying hard to rebrand it), followed by (in 2017, after the forum separated from the Randi Foundation):

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind ... your thoughts were very easy to read ...

is a priori extremely small. When such an extremely improbable event does occur, this leads you to suspect that some unusual phenomenon or effect is at play, and the most obvious explanation is that Michel H is really telepathic, particularly when other similar statements have been made elsewhere (remember John, of Yahoo Answers).

There are wikipedia articles on the Randi Educational Foundation in 12 different languages, reflecting its great international recognition. An excerpt of interest is:

As part of the JREF's goal of educating the general population about science and reason, people involved in their community actively run one of the most popular skeptic based online forums at http://forums.randi.org[28] with the overall goal of promoting "critical thinking and providing the public with the tools needed to reliably examine paranormal, supernatural, and pseudoscientific claims".[29]

On October 5, 2014, this online forum was divorced from the JREF and moved as its own entity to International Skeptics Forum.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation#Forum_and_online_community).

Pixel42 said:

As someone who has been reading Loss Leader's posts for many more years than Michel I can say with some confidence that the probability that he would respond to a test protocol as grossly unscientific as Michel's with sarcasm is approaching 100%.

and I think that this post needs to be addressed (though not because my test protocols are unscientific, because that's fake news). It is true that Loss Leader seems sometimes to have something of a double personality, whith a "Loser" side and a "Leader" side, as he probably understands it himself. Opinions may differ as to which posts are "losing" and which posts are "leading". However, he has managed to remain a moderator for many years on this forum (though never an administrator, as far as I know), which means he has earned respect from his "colleagues" mods or admins.

 

[RoboTimbo]

( a serious-sounding post, as opposed to a sarcastic one,

Since you consider that no poster is ever sarcastic, why do you apply your "credibility ratings" to answers after you know whether they are correct or not? Why not just take all answers as given?

 

[Michel H]

You want to do a test to prove telepathy, but don't want to CONVINCINGLY prove it?

It may be possible to reach a conclusion as to whether Michel H is really telepathic or not in a cumulative way, by doing a large number of simple tests, or by looking at the various kinds of evidence, for example what people say during tests or outside tests.

 

[Gamolon]

It may be possible to reach a conclusion as to whether Michel H is really telepathic or not in a cumulative way, by doing a large number of simple tests, or by looking at the various kinds of evidence, for example what people say during tests or outside tests.

What's the difference between "proving" something and "convincingly proving" something?

Doing a large number of simple (4 answer tests) doesn't take away from the fact that someone still has a 25% chance to guess the answer and you will have done nothing to determine whether correct answers where derived by telepathy or chance/guessing.