New telepathy test, the sequel.

Michel H said:
For me, a good ESP test is a test which is honest, clear and rigorous, and yields (at the end of the analysis) a high hit rate and a small p-value.
Click to expand...

So why have you failed to perform any tests that are even vaguely honest, clear or rigourous? Why are all of your tests biased in the opposite way that you claim to be seeking?
 
abaddon said:
So why have you failed to perform any tests that are even vaguely honest, clear or rigourous? Why are all of your tests biased in the opposite way that you claim to be seeking?
Click to expand...
All my tests have been rigorous, and the attacks against them have been idiotic (personal opinion).
 
Michel H said:
All my tests have been rigorous, and the attacks against them have been idiotic (personal opinion).
Click to expand...

Then put your money where your mouth is and publish your results for the larger scientific community, so that you won't have to be burdened by all the attacks you constantly receive in the forum you choose to frequent.
 
Michel H said:
For me, a good ESP test is a test which is honest, clear and rigorous, and yields (at the end of the analysis) a high hit rate and a small p-value.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the part where you reveal yourself to be a pseudoscientist and not an actual scientist.

You lack honesty, as I will demonstrate when I take up your latest maligning of Loss Leader. Your method lacks rigor, as I've explained at great length regarding its reproducibility. You might as well ignore statistics, because you're simply choosing whatever samples you want. The p-value works only with a null hypothesis, not with you simply speculating about what might be a telepathy hit or a false negative. And yes, you already admitted you can't tell a chance hit from a telepathy hit, so there's no point in pretending you have a statistical model built around a random variable.

But in the end, you consider a result good only if it confirms your belief. A real scientist would accept a rigorous, honest, statistically valid result that fails to falsify the null.

Game over.
 
Michel, part of the purported rigor in your method is that the credibilities you assign can be challenged. You wrote

Michel H said:
In addition, this is not really necessary because people have an opportunity to verify the credibilities assigned.
Click to expand...

But when your star data point is questioned, you write

Michel H said:
I don't think that Loss Leader "verified that I assigned him a completely wrong credibility score" at any point.
Click to expand...

He did, unequivocally, and the consensus among everyone else reviewing your results is that your assessment of his "credibility" in your protocol is incorrect and self-serving. At the very least, Loss Leader's apparent change of heart should have signaled that his credibility-related data were ambiguous and you should have rejected his data on that basis alone.

But we find that you resolve ambiguity in your favor, and that you alone retain the final judgment regarding whether someone's credibility was fairly assessed.

You are not an honest researcher.
 
Michel H said:
I don't think that Loss Leader "verified that I assigned him a completely wrong credibility score" at any point.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Virtually every single poster in this thread who has commented on Loss Leaders post has told you the clear truth that he was being sarcastic. Loss Leader himself told you in very clear language he was being sarcastic.

So if everyone but you agrees "the credibilities assigned" are completely wrong but you ignore them, then your supposed verification means nothing, and is simply something else you falsely claim.

ETA: Beaten to the point by JayUtah.
 
Last edited:
Michel,

As Loss Leader is no longer here to either condone or condemn your interpretations of his answers, I don't think it is fair that you keep relying on them to support your aguments. Surely you must have other examples from forum members still active, or at the very least, alive?
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
You are wrong. Virtually every single poster in this thread who has commented on Loss Leaders post has told you the clear truth that he was being sarcastic. Loss Leader himself told you in very clear language he was being sarcastic.
Click to expand...
I quoted the post at the beginning of this latest discussion. Loss Leader could not have been more clear what he thought of Michel's credibility rating of his answer. It's regrettable that Loss Leader later tried a different tactic which furnished Michel with another quote he could cherry pick and wrongly interpret, but it's clear nothing he or anyone else could say would convince Michel he is wrong.

In any case Michel has just outed himself as a pseudoscientist so, as JayUtah says, game over.
 
junkshop said:
Michel,

As Loss Leader is no longer here to either condone or condemn your interpretations of his answers, I don't think it is fair that you keep relying on them to support your aguments. Surely you must have other examples from forum members still active, or at the very least, alive?
Click to expand...
Just in case it comes up, my guess was exactly that - a guess. I picked the number I picked randomly, uninfluenced by anything. I certainly didn't hear any voice telling me to pick a number. I didn't see any images of any number. I would have rolled a four-sided die, but I didn't have one on me at the time. Next time (if there is a next time, which is looking less and less likely) I will.
 
arthwollipot said:
Just in case it comes up, my guess was exactly that - a guess. I picked the number I picked randomly, uninfluenced by anything. I certainly didn't hear any voice telling me to pick a number. I didn't see any images of any number. I would have rolled a four-sided die, but I didn't have one on me at the time. Next time (if there is a next time, which is looking less and less likely) I will.
Click to expand...

Prediction: If you're wrong you guess doesn't count because you rolled a dice. If you're right your guess will count because you might be lying about rolling the dice in order to give the right answer without drawing the ire of the Ebil Lyin' Skeptics or some such post hoc rationalisation. The game is rigged there are no winners, especially not the OP, much better for all concerned to simply not play.
 
arthwollipot said:
Just in case it comes up, my guess was exactly that - a guess. I picked the number I picked randomly, uninfluenced by anything. I certainly didn't hear any voice telling me to pick a number. I didn't see any images of any number. I would have rolled a four-sided die, but I didn't have one on me at the time. Next time (if there is a next time, which is looking less and less likely) I will.
Click to expand...

A claimant could certainly dismiss this revelation as a straw man. They could say that reception of his thoughts is not deliberate or conscious, and could be mistaken for ordinary thought. Michel has admitted he cannot supply criteria by which original thought may be distinguished from the receipt of "thought projection." So it likely may not matter that you don't experience the choice as communication. This is why it's important to stick with the established protocols, which cover all such unknowns with the umbrella of the null hypothesis.

We'll forgive you this time for not having a four-sided die with you at all times. You could also have flipped a coin twice and assigned a value to each pair of possible outcomes. But carrying coins these days is almost as rare as carrying dice.
 
Of course you could have use one of the ordinary six-sided dice you always carry and just roll until you got a 1, 2, 3 or 4. And then roll again if it seemed insincere or not credible, if the die landed at a seemingly sarcastic angle, for example.
 
Amusingly enough (I have a very small threshold for amusement) it appears that this is how J B Rhine got his positive results for psi. These were very small but statistically positive. Unfortunately he admits in his writings to discarding some responses because he was sure that his test subjects were deliberately making mistakes to annoy him. I'm not sure if anyone ever made the effort to add these back in but what are the odds that if you do the effect goes away?

(Do not make me Google for this. Sometimes one has to do one's own research.)
 
Michel H said:
For me, a good ESP test is a test which is honest, clear and rigorous, and yields (at the end of the analysis) a high hit rate and a small p-value.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about people in your tests giving honest answers?
 
Michel H,

I posted the following a few days back. I was hoping you would have responded to it, particularly with your reaction to the final part. (Highlighted for your convenience.)


jsfisher said:
Michel H said:
I would like to see (gradually) a better public acceptance of my apparent telepathic property. I see this as a normal part of scientific and social progress.
Click to expand...


Well, you have made no progress in that regard here. We are in a continual loop of "am so" from you and "are not" from everyone else with the approach you cling to. Perhaps, just maybe, if you really want a better public acceptance you need to cater more to the public's expectation of what are acceptable protocols.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom