New telepathy test, the sequel.

Michel H said:
Members of this forum are still welcome to object to my analyses when there are serious grounds to object...
Click to expand...

There were grounds in this case. You have no argument against them except to assert without further argument that they are insufficient.

There must, however, be valid reasons in order to make me alter my conclusions.
Click to expand...

If you retain final judgment regarding whether challenges are valid, then it does not serve as any sort of check on your subjectivity. Since your subjective judgment is paramount, your method is irreproducible and therefore not scientific.

The argument "of the crowd" ("What?? At least 10 people have told you they disagreed with you, and you keep on believing your conclusions are right!!!) is not sufficient.
Click to expand...

If the unanimous conclusion of the relevant observers is "not sufficient," then it is beyond anyone's guess what would be.

So, I feel that I have been faithful and respectful with respect to his legacy.
Click to expand...

No. Your assessment of his data has nothing to do with his "legacy" or reverence for his memory. You wanted the hit, so you resolved the ambiguity in his responses in your favor in contravention of your own rules.

You might also notice incidentally that using data which are a little bit imperfect is a hallmark of serious science.
Click to expand...

You are not any sort of authority on this kind of science. It is clear you have no idea how to collect reliable, unbiased data according to its best practices. Your protocol is indistinguishable from cheating, and you have revealed that your goal is to maximize the number of hits, thereby confirming that cheating -- not some novel data-cleaning method -- is your true goal. You were shown protocols that prevented you from cheating. When they were applied, your claimed ability vanished entirely, which has caused you emotional distress.

It seems clear to me that many members of this forum are not objective, in the sense that they often exclusively and desperately want to defend the narrow-minded skeptical viewpoint, in spite of the obvious evidence (which is rarely cited by them).
Click to expand...

No, calling your critics names is not the solution to your problem. The only "obvious" evidence you've provided is for your need to cheat in order to get data you will find acceptable. Your critics have patiently and repeatedly explained the reasons why your protocol and method are not scientifically acceptable. You fail to address them, and instead rely solely on calling your critics unfair and biased.

This is a real problem. So, perhaps you need to adopt a more relaxed and neutral attitude, not like someone who is upset, scared by the idea that his sad skeptical boat might imminently sink.
Click to expand...

No. The real problem is not my unwillingness to "relax." No, I'm not "upset" or "scared." No, I'm not desperately bailing some "sad skeptical boat." You've devolved into emotionally-laden fantasy rather than address the actual reasons given why your experiment has no scientific worth.

The real problem is your blatant declaration that the only data you will accept as valid are those that confirm your desired conclusion. There is no recovery from that. You said the quiet part loud. Methodology aside, your criteria for "good" data are all that's needed to conclude that you have no intention of adhering to scientific best practices. You're looking for pseudoscientific confirmation of your claimed telepathic abilities. This forum will not help you obtain it.
 
JayUtah said:
If you retain final judgment regarding whether challenges are valid, then it does not serve as any sort of check on your subjectivity. Since your subjective judgment is paramount, your method is irreproducible and therefore not scientific.
Click to expand...
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest, but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, where I regularly observe criminal tendencies (personal opinion).

So I think it should be up to me to decide whether I decide to revise my conclusions or not after you have posted your objections (it is always possible).

Your own personal final judgment (after reading the various arguments) always belongs to you, and to you alone (and this is of course true also for other members). You are always free to make up your mind independently.
 
Michel, you may have your own view in whether you are telepathic or not, but you can never claim that a survey where you decide on the credibility of respondents is neutral and unbiased.

In other words, what you have presented here and elsewhere is worthless from a scientific point of view.

If you want to produce an unbiased investigation, and still be able to remove insincere replies, you should remove yourself from those decisions. You could appoint someone who does not know the correct answer to vet the answers and present them, and only then will the correct answer be revealed.

A protocol like this would impress people here, even those with criminal tendencies.
 
Michel, in your personal opinion you are telepathic. In your experiments you use personal opinion to select results. That's not doing science, it's just expressing your opinion.
 
I can assure you that none of us are scared of any possibilities. Honestly, and I think others here felt the same, when I began to realize that certain things I had believed in, like telepathy and psychic abilities, weren't true I was disappointed. I would love for these things to be proven. Your methods however are only making it look worse and less likely. The animosity you feel from us is not a doubt in the possibilities, it's your inability to listen and take in anything that is said to you. We are not all lying to you or out to get you. Why would we all lie just to prove you wrong? There is nothing to be gained by that. We are just fed up that you simply won't listen to anyone on anything. You are incapable of admitting you are wrong on anything. I don't know if it is because of your illness or ego issues. Until you honestly listen to what others have to say and can admit mistakes, I don't think you will find anything of value here.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest, but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, where I regularly observe criminal tendencies (personal opinion).
Click to expand...

I recommend everyone read this sentence and consider it carefully before continuing to engage with someone who believes them to be a lying criminal.

Dave
 
Michel H said:
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest, but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, ...
Your own personal final judgment (after reading the various arguments) always belongs to you, and to you alone (and this is of course true also for other members). You are always free to make up your mind independently.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

You are free to decide if you are telepathic. Members here can make the same judgement. The issue is when you try to justify your option to others or ask others to accept your opinion my making a claim on a public forum.

You think you are telepathic, great. We don't but heigh ho let's go different ways and never discuss it again.

If however you do want to carry on discussing it or make new public claims then expect ridicule and hostility because that it what your claims deserve. They are in no-one's opionon apart from your own a reasonable demonstration of telepathy.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
What criminal tendencies do you observe here?
Click to expand...

Michel H said:
See for example posts #2298 and #2211 (no justification).
Click to expand...

#2298:
Matthew Ellard said:
Logically, Michel H is complimenting everyone on Earth for their honesty.

Despite his claim he is broadcasting his bank, bank account number and PIN number, no one has ever cleared his bank accounts.
Click to expand...

#2291:
abaddon said:
Normally, I would be right up there with the mockery of cranks. But Michel is seriously ill and mockery would be a bad move.
Click to expand...


Michel, how are these posts examples of 'criminal tendencies?
 
Michel H said:
See for example posts #2298 and #2211 (no justification).
Click to expand...

Post #2298 does not exhibit any criminal tendency at all.

It merely notes an obvious security problem one would encounter if all ones thoughts were broadcast and makes a joking suggestion that you might be intending to complement the entire human race on their honesty since (it is assumed) nobody has used knowledge of your banking details to rob you.

Clearly in pointing this out it also draws attention to how very unlikely it is that you would not be robbed in such circumstances, since there are obviously a proportion of dishonest and criminal people in the world. The implication is that the world does not know your thoughts.

So, no, the post does not hint at any criminal tendency in the poster, only an ability to imagine themselves in a situation similar to what you imagine your own situation to be, and to perceive one of the problems this would cause.

As for post #2211 I can't see what criminality you imagine there. Perhaps you meant a different post.
 
Michel H said:
I am always interested in objections and even criticism if it is neutral and honest...
Click to expand...

But you conveniently define all the criticism you receive here as biased and dishonest, even if it isn't. So no one really believes you are interested in actual criticism. You've been provided with abundant evidence that your method is irreproducible and otherwise unscientific. But you dismiss all that evidence as the product of ill will without addressing its substance.

...but whether or not I am telepathic should not be decided by a majority vote on a skeptical forum like this, where I regularly observe criminal tendencies (personal opinion).
Click to expand...

Great, we're all criminals now. Way to double down on the hateful rhetoric. And you wonder why you get no respect!

You're absolutely right: whether you are telepathic or not should not be decided by a majority vote. It should be decided by a properly controlled, properly blinded experiment. We conducted one of those on your behalf, and it failed to prove your claim. So you reverted to the kind of experiment that lets you cherry-pick the data, and blatantly declared that the only outcome you will accept as valid is one that confirms your belief.

The provision in your protocol that allows review of your "credibility ratings" is ostensibly intended to eliminate the effects of your subjective bias in rendering judgment. It was your idea, not ours. So it's nobody's fault but yours that this part of your protocol too fails to give you what you want. You'll submit to review, but only from people sympathetic to your claim. That just kicks the can down the road a bit. Even less appropriate than a democratic vote on the validity of your data is a dictatorial fiat that only you can decide whether to accept or reject data, after seeing whether it helps or hinders your claim, with the stated goal of maximizing hits. You don't seem to grasp just how far from science you've wandered.

If you don't like how this skeptics forum receives you, then why stick around? It's clear that your participation here does nothing to further your goal of more general scientific acceptance of paranormal claims. You clearly have no respect for any of the people here, or for anything they say. So put your money where your mouth is: publish your claims in a reputable journal and show up your critics for the "criminals" you clearly think they are. But since it's been something like eight years that you've puttered around this and other forums, peddling your homegrown psychology, it's highly unlikely you will ever do that. Publishing your findings means you would have to endure the potential consequences of a rejection you can't subvert by impugning your critics. You're happy now with the ambiguity afforded by informal review, and your ability to bluster your way along indefinitely.

So I think it should be up to me to decide whether I decide to revise my conclusions or not after you have posted your objections (it is always possible).
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want. But what you cannot do is insist that your method passes scientific muster. That is, and always has been, up to the judgment of others. Did you just up and decide that you should be granted a doctoral degree in physics? Or did you have to convince the faculty of the University of Minnesota that you deserved that honor? Did they grant your degree upon the basis of your begging and pleading? Or did you have to produce a parcel of original scientific inquiry into the behavior of light ions that stood up to scrutiny on its own?

Same rules apply here. You claim you want the notion of your "thought projection" to be more readily accepted by science. But you're utterly uninterested in what standards are required by the people whose approval you seek, and why they are required.

Your own personal final judgment (after reading the various arguments) always belongs to you, and to you alone (and this is of course true also for other members). You are always free to make up your mind independently.
Click to expand...

We have, and it seems to have upset you because we got what you think is the wrong answer.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
I recommend everyone read this sentence and consider it carefully before continuing to engage with someone who believes them to be a lying criminal.

Dave
Click to expand...

I've been called worse. But yes, in this case there is ample reason to believe Michel literally believes this about his critics.

I'm not qualified to diagnose or treat mental illness. But I am qualified to determine the validity of scientific processes. So long as some semblance of a discussion is possible and meaningful along those lines, I might be interested.
 
JayUtah said:
I've been called worse. But yes, in this case there is ample reason to believe Michel literally believes this about his critics.
Click to expand...

Going a little further, Michel has said in the past that he is the victim of a criminal conspiracy to hide from him the reality that telepathy exists and is being used to torment him. So it's not just that he thinks people who disagree with his views on telepathy may be criminals; it's that he thinks that disagreeing with him is in itself being an accessory to a crime.

If you still believe that even a semblance of a meaningful discussion is possible under those circumstances, I think you're excessively optimistic.

Dave
 
My contribution to this thread has been predicated entirely on gushing amounts of irrational optimism. But for boredom, I would have backed away slowly while avoiding eye contact.
 
I wonder if a different approach might be valuable.

It is an interesting question as to how to design a valid statistical experiment in which there is an issue about the credibility of the answers. (There has been at least a little discussion about this in the past.) As someone who doesn't do experimental design, I would be interested in learning how this might be done. If a design appeals to Michel, fine. If not, also fine.

As an initial suggestion, I think one could design a setup where both responses and any accompanying comments go to a third party. The third party then tosses a coin and either changes the specific response or leaves it as submitted, keeping track of which were changed. Everything then goes to the person who evaluates each response and who can decide which ones are credible. Those considered credible are then revealed to all. It ought to be possible to back out a valid statistic I would think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom