New telepathy test, the sequel.

Michel H said:
Later perhaps, not now.

People (including myself) need some time to answer, comment, react, relax, concentrate ... .
Click to expand...
If you only do it once, then I have a 25% chance of getting the right number just by random chance. I could literally throw a four-sided dice and be right one time in four.
 
arthwollipot said:
If you only do it once, then I have a 25% chance of getting the right number just by random chance. I could literally throw a four-sided dice and be right one time in four.
Click to expand...
True, but I have been doing many tests for many years, and I will perhaps do many more.

I wouldn't be very surprised if those tests had some security and even political consequences.

Better not to exhaust the patient ...

Unlike many skeptics, I am not very eager to create the ideal conditions for failure.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
True, but I have been doing many tests for many years, and I will perhaps do many more.

I wouldn't be very surprised if those tests had some security and even political consequences.

Better not to exhaust the patient ...

Unlike many skeptics, I am not very eager to create the ideal conditions for failure.
Click to expand...
What you refer to as "ideal conditions for failure" we refer to as "reliable experimental procedure". There's a method for determining what is real and what is not, and by using it, humanity has discovered great and wonderful things. By calling it "ideal conditions for failure" you're implicitly admitting that you know that telepathy is not real. Because what it is failing is a test for reality.

Let me know when you've picked another number and I'll have another go at it.
 
junkshop said:
If people are able to telepathically hear your thoughts, then why would they need to guess anything?
Click to expand...

Michel H said:
"Telepathically guess" is a commonly used term, that even Rupert Sheldrake uses. You may verify it using Google.

The word "guess" implies a certain idea of uncertainty, it's not like reading a book, or a computer screen.
Click to expand...

You say that as if his name lends credence to your claims. It does not. It still would not, even if his ideas about telepathy were similar to yours (which my, admittedly brief, research suggests they are not).

You have characterised your telepathy as others hearing your thoughts in their minds, so obviously that is not like reading. If your thoughts are being transmitted from your mind to their's, however, why the uncertainty? Is there interference (if so from where)? Do you mumble internally?
 
Michel H said:
Unlike many skeptics, I am not very eager to create the ideal conditions for failure.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, why the results are never valid. The whole point of scientific experimentation is to create the ideal conditions for an experiment to fail; if, then, it nevertheless succeeds, the inference is that the results are robust. Failing to create the ideal conditions for failure is what people do when they are looking to validate a belief, not test it. We know that this validation is your intention, rather than actually answering an open question; you are convinced that telepathy exists and your tests are simply meant to reassure you that everyone who denies this claim is lying to you.

Dave
 
'Michael H':

Sorry, but I really do not see just what your trouble is.

If real telepathy can be shown to occur by using a simple test, then it should be quite possible for you to demonstrate real telepathy.

However, in the past five years since you started this thread, you continually failed to show even one case of real telepathy.

As such, your consistent claims about the existence of real telepathy are being viewed with a considerable amount of disbelief.
 
junkshop said:
If people are able to telepathically hear your thoughts, then why would they need to guess anything?
Click to expand...

Tried before, didn't work. It's also been pointed out why 1-4 is embarrassingly insufficient enough for this kind of test.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I understand how you feel, Myriad, but I am afraid I cannot do this for you, because this is an extra-sensory test.

However, for you (and perhaps also for others who might still be interested), I have written and circled again the target number, and I have also said it out loud. I will probably do this again with my "partners" (by this, I mean the mysterious, unidentified "voices in my head" who are often willing to cooperate in these simple experiments). They can help by saying the number too (I also ask sometimes the lady of Google Translate to say the target number).
Click to expand...


Okay, here's the point I was making.

You do not trust me to be unbiased in my number selection, once I've seen the number. I might say I promise not to be biased, but you don't believe it.

You are correct not to trust me on that. You should not. I can't avoid my choice being biased (influenced or changed) if I already know what the target is.

Here's the thing: for exactly the same reasons, the people you are asking to participate in the test here cannot and should not trust you not to be biased in how you score the answers you receive.

You, after all, already know what the target number is. The same information you don't want me to have. It would bias me. It will bias you. Even if you don't intend it, your scoring of the results will be biased.

You should look up "double-blind test" to see how scientists avoid this problem in research studies. You'll see that it's a lot of extra effort to go through to do that, but they do it anyhow, because it's so important.
 
Results

I would like now to give the results of my latest ESP test, about 12 days after I started it:
Michel H said:
The best evidence is probably the one you provide yourself.

This is why I invite you, once again, to unleash your extra-sensory talents.

I recently wrote (and circled) one of the following four numbers: "2", "3", "4" and "5" on a piece of paper near me.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me which one I wrote.
Click to expand...
I saw only one clear answer:
arthwollipot said:
Two.
Click to expand...
.

This answer was credible (though very brief) and correct.

Arthwollipot is a former administrator of the Australasian Skeptics forum (which is now closed).

Arthwollipot's answer was given about 22 hours after sackett said:
sackett said:
12.

12.

TWELVE, Michael. !!!!

Does the significance of that number escape you? I doubt it! Does it frighten you? I dare say it does! Indeed.
Click to expand...
12 isn't a valid answer in this test, but it is closely related to the right answer (2), because, when you remove the "1" (which is not a possible answer), you get "2".

I therefore think that sackett deserves some credit for putting Arth "on the right track". I also found that there is a certain element of sensitivity in his answer. It seemed to me that abaddon, p0lka and Nay_Sayer also suggested the correct answer, but not in a clear way

In parallel with this test, I did also a test on the Spiritual Forums (with the same target, namely "2"), and I found there that the hit rate for credible answers was equal to 50% (see https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=141734 for details).

In addition, the most credible answer (in my opinion) was the only correct one.

So I would say that both tests seemed to provide support for my usual assumption that I am a worldwide and involuntary "thought projector".
 
You gave Arthwollipot a clue.

Michel H said:
They can help by saying the number too.
Click to expand...


"The number too."
That's a lot like "The number two," isn't it?

That's a second reason why a test like this should be double-blinded. As I predicted, knowing the answer has biased your interpretation of the results. But also, since you already knew the correct answer, you couldn't resist giving out clues, maybe without even being aware of it yourself. Not by projecting thoughts, but by posting words.
 
Myriad said:
You gave Arthwollipot a clue.




"The number too."
That's a lot like "The number two," isn't it?

That's a second reason why a test like this should be double-blinded. As I predicted, knowing the answer has biased your interpretation of the results. But also, since you already knew the correct answer, you couldn't resist giving out clues, maybe without even being aware of it yourself. Not by projecting thoughts, but by posting words.
Click to expand...
The word "too" does indeed resemble "two" but this is pure coincidence (by the way, I wrote "2", not "two" on my paper, like in the opening post).

There was nothing abnormal in my sentence: "They can help by saying the number too." which might indicate that I was trying to perversely convey the idea that the target was "2" (for example, there was no spelling mistake, I didn't write "to" instead of "too"). In this sentence, "too" meant "also", and referred to other people possibly telling the mystery number as well.

In addition, I believe that my online tests may be considered as practically double-blinded. They are single-blinded because people have to answer with no sensory clue. And they are (practically, not strictly) double-blinded because of my care in analyzing answers and credibilities thereof in a neutral way, and because a large number of people can immediately check the work and point out any lack of rigor for a specific answer (or several), which they usually cannot do in a convincing way (in my opinion).
 
Michel H said:
The word "too" does indeed resemble "two" but this is pure coincidence...
Click to expand...

Just like it's pure coincidence that the number twelve contains the numeral 2. Since you're making up the rules as you go about what is correct and incorrect, your "science" is worthless.

And they are (practically, not strictly) double-blinded because of my care in analyzing answers and credibilities thereof in a neutral way...
Click to expand...

It is observably not a neutral way. It's purely subjective, purely ad hoc, and absolutely irreproducible.

...and because a large number of people can immediately check the work and point out any lack of rigor for a specific answer (or several), which they usually cannot do in a convincing way (in my opinion).
Click to expand...

If they cannot convince you, in your opinion, then you abjectly fail the test for scientific reproducibility. You have quite adequately demonstrated that your "test" has no appreciable rigor that can be reproduced by another researcher.
 
Michel H said:
So I would say that both tests seemed to provide support for my usual assumption that I am a worldwide and involuntary "thought projector".
Click to expand...

No, your p-value is 0.25, far above the p < 0.05 required for a scientifically tenable conclusion.

Your statistics don't work out, and your method is pure subjective ad-hockery. No, you are neither credible as a "thought projector" nor credible as someone who is competent to do science.
 
Michel H said:
I would like now to give the results of my latest ESP test, about 12 days after I started it:

I saw only one clear answer:
.

This answer was credible (though very brief) and correct.

Arthwollipot is a former administrator of the Australasian Skeptics forum (which is now closed).

Arthwollipot's answer was given about 22 hours after sackett said:

12 isn't a valid answer in this test, but it is closely related to the right answer (2), because, when you remove the "1" (which is not a possible answer), you get "2".

I therefore think that sackett deserves some credit for putting Arth "on the right track". I also found that there is a certain element of sensitivity in his answer. It seemed to me that abaddon, p0lka and Nay_Sayer also suggested the correct answer, but not in a clear way

In parallel with this test, I did also a test on the Spiritual Forums (with the same target, namely "2"), and I found there that the hit rate for credible answers was equal to 50% (see https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=141734 for details).

In addition, the most credible answer (in my opinion) was the only correct one.

So I would say that both tests seemed to provide support for my usual assumption that I am a worldwide and involuntary "thought projector".
Click to expand...

One can use the number 12 to get the answer 2, 3, 4 or 5 very easily.

You already claimed you could drop the 1 from 12 to get 2
12=3x4 so there is 3 and 4
2+3=5
So it doesn't matter which number you circled, or even if you circled none. Regardless of any answer given, you could easily twist it into a hit.

Your test and analysis are invalid. You wasted everyone's time again.
 
I misunderstood the objective. I thought you were writing one number, and circling another Your instructions were unclear, therefore your experiment is invalid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom