New telepathy test, the sequel.

Michel H said:
Authors can express opinions on other theories (preferably with arguments and explanations, just the way I do), there is no problem with that. And then readers can agree or disagree, and make their opinions known, just the way they have been invited in my tests.

For example, somebody could say:"You claim that the incorrect answer given by xxx isn't credible but, I am sorry Michel H, I find this answer completely serious and friendly, please revise your analysis accordingly".

But this almost never happens on this forum, and I have even noticed that actual answers to my test are even rarely quoted, in an apparent phenomenon of "data avoidance".

So, yes, I believe my tests have been done and analysed with the highest level of care and rigor (and with respect for those who participated), and dozens of attacks by ignorant jerks don't really change anything from a scientific point of view.

I understand why Ladewig commented (after my second test):

(a very rare level of praise; I know, of course, that some jerks can be found on this forum who will claim that this enthusiastic post was somehow disguised mockery that I cannot understand because of my "condition", but I don't pay much attention to the worst).

All of this will perhaps be made clearer by an actual example, from my second test (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9516155#post9516155).

In this test, Kid Eager answered:

It seems to me that all reasonable, intelligent and honest people should agree that this is not a credible answer in a ESP test (even though it is funny and creative), this is why I assigned a credibility rating of -10 to it. Obviously, the actual number given at the end is utterly irrelevant for its credibility rating.
Click to expand...

You could have just said "No, I can't find any such experiment in the scientific literature" and saved yourself all that pointless typing.
 
Pixel42 said:
You could have just said "No, I can't find any such experiment in the scientific literature" and saved yourself all that pointless typing.
Click to expand...
No, it's standard in the scientific literature to criticize works by others, and to be oneself open to criticism by others. So all I have done here in my tests is very standard, I think.

I assume the true reason why nobody has never disagreed with my credibility ratings is that they were so impeccable that nobody has ever found a (serious) flaw in them (even after several years of trying).

You are welcome to stop the data avoidance, and to express your opinion on Kid Eager's answer.
 
Michel H said:
No, it's standard in the scientific literature to criticize works by others, and to be oneself open to criticism by others. So all I have done here in my tests is very standard, I think..
Click to expand...
Then point to an example in the peer reviewed scientific literature of a test protocol that includes a step where the experimenter makes a subjective, unblinded judgement like the one that's part of yours. If it's standard, there should be plenty of such examples. Find just one.

I assume the true reason why nobody has never disagreed with my credibility ratings is that they were so impeccable that nobody has ever found a (serious) flaw in them (even after several years of trying).
Click to expand...
Everybody disagreed with your credibility rating of Loss Leader's answer, including Loss Leader himself. There were also others which everybody but you recognised as sarcasm. So this is manifestly untrue.

You are welcome to stop the data avoidance, and to express your opinion on Kid Eager's answer
Click to expand...

Kid Eager, like Loss Leader, was mocking you. The fact that your subjective judgement was right in one case and wrong in the other is precisely why your tests are worthless.
 
Michel H said:
No, it's standard in the scientific literature to criticize works by others, and to be oneself open to criticism by others. So all I have done here in my tests is very standard, I think.
Click to expand...

Persisting with a fundamentally flawed protocol when its completely obvious fatal flaw has been described time after time is not very standard, I think.
 
Michel H said:
So, yes, I believe my tests have been done and analysed with the highest level of care and rigor...
Click to expand...

No. What you're doing is exactly what proper experimental controls and protocols are designed to prevent. Your method is quite obviously simply cherry-picking disguised as data cleaning.

Others have asked you to provide examples from the literature of subjective, unblinded data filtration of the type you propose to do. This is a reasonable challenge. However, it is predicated on the premise that you believe such filtration is common and accepted. I recall you argued that your results were even more accurate than those in the existing literature because you applied those filters and others did not. The subjective, unblinded filtration you're doing seems to be a step you believe you've innovated.

I still say put your money where your mouth is. Publish your findings. Subject them to peer review that you cannot simply wave away by saying the reviewers are committed skeptics. Convince the world that your method produces better results than existing methods designed to rule out bias. I'm not interested in your idle boasts on web forums, or your personal insistence that your method is sound. I want to see your findings in a proper journal that enforces proper scientific rigor. I say put up -- in exactly that way -- or shut up.
 
Pixel42 said:
Everybody disagreed with your credibility rating of Loss Leader's answer, including Loss Leader himself. There were also others which everybody but you recognised as sarcasm. So this is manifestly untrue.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Loss Leader ever complained about his credibility rating in my test.

He did say, for a while (and in a deliberately ambiguous way), that his correct answer:
Loss Leader said:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
Click to expand...
was just a random lie.

This reflects a very common phenomenon of telepathy rejection.

However, he later retracted himself and said:
Loss Leader said:
... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of. You did not feel aggressively towards me back then so your thoughts were very easy to read and you did not change your answer when you knew I was right. ...
Click to expand...

The proper way to evaluate an answer like:
Loss Leader said:
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
Click to expand...
is certainly not to say "telepathy doesn't exist and therefore this answer is crazy and non-credible". This answer was clear, polite, and in line with my observations of being a special thought broadcaster (as my mother, a good friend and a psychiatrist told me). So I had no reason to reject it. It turned out that it was also correct.

So far I think all current or previous "figures of authority" (Loss Leader and Arthwollipot) have a hit rate equal to 100% in my tests.
 
Michel H said:
I don't think that Loss Leader ever complained about his credibility rating in my test.

He did say, for a while (and in a deliberately ambiguous way), that his correct answer:

was just a random lie.

This reflects a very common phenomenon of telepathy rejection.

However, he later retracted himself and said:


The proper way to evaluate an answer like:

is certainly not to say "telepathy doesn't exist and therefore this answer is crazy and non-credible". This answer was clear, polite, and in line with my observations of being a special thought broadcaster (as my mother, a good friend and a psychiatrist told me). So I had no reason to reject it. It turned out that it was also correct.

So far I think all current or previous "figures of authority" (Loss Leader and Arthwollipot) have a hit rate equal to 100% in my tests.
Click to expand...


But you are not able to make that assessment fairly, because you knew all along what the target numbers were. For the same reason you wouldn't (and shouldn't) trust me to give an unbiased response after you told me what the target number was, there's no reason for anyone to trust you to evaluate the responses fairly when you already knew what the target number was.
 
JayUtah said:
No. What you're doing is exactly what proper experimental controls and protocols are designed to prevent. Your method is quite obviously simply cherry-picking disguised as data cleaning.

Others have asked you to provide examples from the literature of subjective, unblinded data filtration of the type you propose to do. This is a reasonable challenge. However, it is predicated on the premise that you believe such filtration is common and accepted. I recall you argued that your results were even more accurate than those in the existing literature because you applied those filters and others did not. The subjective, unblinded filtration you're doing seems to be a step you believe you've innovated.

I still say put your money where your mouth is. Publish your findings. Subject them to peer review that you cannot simply wave away by saying the reviewers are committed skeptics. Convince the world that your method produces better results than existing methods designed to rule out bias. I'm not interested in your idle boasts on web forums, or your personal insistence that your method is sound. I want to see your findings in a proper journal that enforces proper scientific rigor. I say put up -- in exactly that way -- or shut up.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think I could publish my findings on telepathy. I even have a possible title ready:
Am I telepathic?
(some remarks on my apparently exceptional thought broadcasting case)
Click to expand...
.

However, I just feel the time isn't right for such a publication. I suspect it could generate some trouble, not only for me, but also possibly for others. There are some things in life that are better left a little unsaid.

Also, I am working on some other interesting projects, that I have had to neglect for some time because of personal reasons.
 
You could save on publishing costs by just making it an audio book.
i.e. reading your manuscript out aloud and assuming we all hear it.
 
Michel H said:
However, I just feel the time isn't right for such a publication.
Click to expand...

I don't care about your excuses. You want your methodology to be accepted as valid. There is only one way to do that. If you are unwilling to do that, then you have no right to expect people here to coddle you. Put up or shut up.

There are some things in life that are better left a little unsaid.
Click to expand...

Then don't say any part of them. Your paranoia-masquerading-as-coyness is not cute. It's annoying, especially when you answer reasonable criticism with insults and abuse. If you are unwilling to meet the standards of this forum, then it is not the right place for you to publicize your claims.
 
Michel H said:
However, I just feel the time isn't right for such a publication. I suspect it could generate some trouble, not only for me, but also possibly for others. There are some things in life that are better left a little unsaid.
Click to expand...

And this, of course, is another reason why it's futile to engage with Michel; if you think what he's doing is a scientific enquiry to prove to the world that telepathy exists, you've badly misunderstood his motives. In his mind we all know already that telepathy exists; we're just all part of a world-wide conspiracy to gaslight him into believing that the voices in his head that say unpleasant things to him are a symptom of his mental illness, by denying that telepathy exists, when in fact - again in his mind - we all know perfectly well that it exists and is being used to victimise him. He's said as much in the past - that there is a criminal conspiracy to harm him using telepathy, and to deny that it's taking place. He's not trying to convince the unbelievers; he's trying to back a world full of liars into a corner where we all have to give in, throw our hands in the air, and admit that we knew he was right all along but have desperately been trying to defend a transparent lie. It isn't a scientific experiment, and he isn't Isaac Newton; it's a cross-examination, and he's Perry Mason. What he's expecting to get out of this is the moment where we all grit our teeth, twirl our moustaches and say, "We'd have got away with it too, if it weren't for that pesky Belgian!"

When you realise that everything you say, however true and sensible, is going to be interpreted as hostile testimony from a known liar, there becomes little point in bothering to say it.

Dave
 
Although I am not qualified to read Michel H's mind, this sentence he wrote reminded me of possibly related experiences I may have experienced myself.
Michel H said:
I am not able to control dogs, but dogs and birds seem to react frequently to what I say, alone, in my apartment (or, when I walk outside, like yesterday, for example).
Click to expand...
I am not able to control gods, but gods seem to listen respectfully to what I say, alone, in my apartment or when walking outside. They do not interrupt, nor do they erupt with laughter or wailing or sputtering anger. They listen in complete silence. I do not know whether they gather afterwards to discuss what I have said, but I find it difficult to imagine a world in which they think I am worthy of ridicule, sorrow, or malice.

Dave Rogers said:
And the difficulty of remembering that, though people on both sides are speaking, a conversation is not necessarily taking place.
Click to expand...
In the conversations I described above, only one person is speaking.
 
Michel H said:
I think there is no way I can know this with certainty, but I can rely to some extent on what people (like Loss Leader for example) say.
Click to expand...
You’re admitting that you considered results of your test as being correct without knowing for sure if it was a guess or telepathy!?
 
Michel H said:
I think there is no way I can know this with certainty...
Click to expand...

There is a way you can know with bounded uncertainty. Care to guess what that might be?

...but I can rely to some extent on what people (like Loss Leader for example) say.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is the difference between what they said and what you think they said. Can you think of a way to avoid that whole problem altogether? I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom