Paranormal detection

[reason1]

It's been two months since your previous post. Why have you not applied for the Million Dollar Challenge? You've come back after all this time to regurgitate the same mess we have repeatedly pointed out as a useless protocol.

What has the media thought of your paranormal powers? Last we heard, you were in contact with just about everyone.

I'm working on getting the MDC requirements. It's going to take sometime. And believe me, it's not about the MDC, it's about science. The scientific community wants extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, and passing the MDC will be the extraordinary evidence.

If you are unwilling to change your protocol to something that is simpler and where the results would be self-evident (and Jackal girl was correct, you don't know the meaning of the term) then submit your application and best of luck. I don't understand why you haven't done so already.

My claim is simple but unfortunately the conditions are not so simple. I don't want to look like a fool at the test. Also I saw some videos in which James Randi was testing psychics with people randomly chosen from the public audience, and he was using questionnaire. What's wrong with using the public?. And would someone tell me what is meaning of self-evident in regard to the MDC?.

 

[Cuddles]

The scientific community wants extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims

The problem you have is that "If I make a sudden sudden movement, some people nearby might react" is not an extraordinary claim. There's no point in you worrying about providing evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, until you actually have an extraordinary claim to which you can apply said evidence.

 

[reason1]

The problem you have is that "If I make a sudden sudden movement, some people nearby might react" is not an extraordinary claim. There's no point in you worrying about providing evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, until you actually have an extraordinary claim to which you can apply said evidence.

Really!, did I actually say that?. Would you please quote my post?.

 

[reason1]

There's no point in you worrying about providing evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, until you actually have an extraordinary claim to which you can apply said evidence.

Here is the data from my experiences:

Thousands of true positives (the hits spanned years of my life).
No false positives, which means I didn't suddenly look in a certain direction after sensing staring and found no starers.
That happened when there were random amount of people around me and at random places, from the crowded to the visually empty.
The starers were random people at random directions (including from above me).
Those were at random distances, from the near to the long for any sound to reach me.
Not only I sensed the starers but also they affirmed that by the caught off guard behavior.
There wasn't any visual or audible stimulus that made me interrupt what I was doing and suddenly look in the directions of the starers.
I didn't catch staring when I didn't sense it while looking around for a reason or non.
And all of that happened at random times.​

Isn't this extraordinary to happen?.

 

[Cuddles]

Really!, did I actually say that?. Would you please quote my post?.

I never claimed those were your exact words, that was simply a summary of your claim. Of course, you are free to quote the post where I claim those were your exact words if you like.

Here is the data from my experiences:

Thousands of true positives (the hits spanned years of my life).
No false positives, which means I didn't suddenly look in a certain direction after sensing staring and found no starers.
That happened when there were random amount of people around me and at random places, from the crowded to the visually empty.
The starers were random people at random directions (including from above me).
Those were at random distances, from the near to the long for any sound to reach me.
Not only I sensed the starers but also they affirmed that by the caught off guard behavior.
There wasn't any visual or audible stimulus that made me interrupt what I was doing and suddenly look in the directions of the starers.
I didn't catch staring when I didn't sense it while looking around for a reason or non.
And all of that happened at random times.​

That is not data, it is simply more unsubstantiated claims.

Isn't this extraordinary to happen?.

Not in the slightest. This has been explained to you many times. It's lovely that you find the world such an extraordinary place, but I suggest that you'd be much better off basking in that extraordinariness rather than wasting your time making claims that no-one else is vaguely interested in and trying to apply for prizes for which you are not eligible.

 

[dlorde]

Exactly!, thanks you. The normal behavior for someone whom you suddenly gaze at, is to gaze back at you, wondering why you are staring. In my case, the opposite happens: When I sense staring I suddenly look in a certain direction in which I find someone who is already looking at me, suddenly look away from my direction. And this shouldn't happen unless that person had the intention of staring.


Do you have any other explanation for this after it happened thousands of times?

What about the curiosity that causes other people to turn their heads to follow the direction of your gaze to see what's so interesting ? There are any number of explanations why someone might turn their head away when you look in their direction, and any number of reasons why they might not - whether they happen to be staring at you or not - which we really have no way of knowing, short of asking them. Looking in your direction is not necessarily staring, as you have often told us...

You've been given protocols that could test the claim you made without any of these problems, yet you've rejected or ignored them all.

 

[leafman91]

That is not data, it is simply more unsubstantiated claims.

What counts as a substantiated claim?

 

[Ashles]

What counts as a substantiated claim?

Any that occurred under controlled circumstances. Or we have evidence to believe isn't just a person writing made up things on an internet forum.

I.e. any that were witnessed by other independent witnesses and in situations where they were recorded so as to remove the risks of lying, incorrect recall, exaggeration etc.

Any such instances?

 

[desertgal]

Exactly!, thanks you. The normal behavior for someone whom you suddenly gaze at, is to gaze back at you, wondering why you are staring. In my case, the opposite happens: When I sense staring I suddenly look in a certain direction in which I find someone who is already looking at me, suddenly look away from my direction. And this shouldn't happen unless that person had the intention of staring.

You have yet to state any reasonable protocol that would prove that the opposite is true. You cannot prove, without the other person's testimony, that they were, in fact, staring at you with the intention of staring at you. For all anyone knows, they could have been staring in your direction without focusing specifically on you. I could go on about whether their initial intent was to stare at you, but this has all been pointed out to you before, several times.

Your claim is dead in the water. You refuse all objective opinions and/or reasonable suggestions for objective protocols that could easily test your claim. This relegates to you to the rank of every other paranormal claimant that has appeared on this forum: "I have a claim that I will not reasonably or objectively test." Good luck with that, but I don't see you taking your claim anywhere beyond this point.

 

[reason1]

What about the curiosity that causes other people to turn their heads to follow the direction of your gaze to see what's so interesting ?

This possibility was mentioned before in the previous page, and the poster said that he/she will self-test it, but he/she didn't post the results. But, in my case, the starers suddenly turn their heads by a degree just enough for them to be considered not staring at me. They will turn their head by 180 degrees in the direction in which I suddenly look in... Moreover:

There are any number of explanations why someone might turn their head away when you look in their direction, and any number of reasons why they might not - whether they happen to be staring at you or not -

As I said before, it's a matter of probabilities not possibilities. I can get you many explanations of my own for people's behavior, e.g. someone is calling the starers names, the starers have a neurological problem, they are mad or possessed by ghosts etc... But what are the chances that I can make that happen without false positives. Any claimant can get a hit by non paranormal way, but what are the odds of not getting false positives!. As critical thinkers, our doubt must be reasonable. We must approach such claims using an open mind that adheres to the scientific method which made some extraordinary claims become scientific facts.

which we really have no way of knowing, short of asking them.

I have no problem with asking the starers but I don't think it's necessary when there is an inexplicable correlation.

Looking in your direction is not necessarily staring, as you have often told us...

I meant people who are looking at something behind me. Of course people who are looking in my precise direction are staring at me.

You've been given protocols that could test the claim you made without any of these problems, yet you've rejected or ignored them all.

All I want for the staring is to be the natural staring that happens out of an internal motivation which also has a certain intensity that varies from person to person. Interestingly this will make the test blind, and blind experiments are more reliable.
I can't detect bored people who stare on demand, like what happens in the movies...

 

[Pantaz]

This whole thing is reminding me of the Saturday Night Live sketch, "What the hell is that?", with Steve Martin and Bill Murray.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=50236871

 

[dropzone]

Wow. I went to the last page in hope that something not-nonsensical had been filtered through 20 pages of nonsense. Guess not.

ETA: Czarcasm, I've known you for years. You're a smart boy and shouldn't worry about your finals.

ETAA: Yeah, I jumped to the middle of the thread but left the rest unsullied by my baseless predictions. Hope you did well, but with you being you...

 

[Robert Oz]

I'm working on getting the MDC requirements. It's going to take sometime. And believe me, it's not about the MDC, it's about science. The scientific community wants extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, and passing the MDC will be the extraordinary evidence.


My claim is simple but unfortunately the conditions are not so simple. I don't want to look like a fool at the test. Also I saw some videos in which James Randi was testing psychics with people randomly chosen from the public audience, and he was using questionnaire. What's wrong with using the public?. And would someone tell me what is meaning of self-evident in regard to the MDC?.

Sometimes, to get to the truth, one needs to be willing to look the fool.

To answer all your questions and point out what is so very wrong with your protocol, please re-read the last 20 pages of this thread. There is no point in creating another 20 pages, the first 20 covered it in great detail.

 

[dlorde]

This possibility was mentioned before in the previous page, and the poster said that he/she will self-test it, but he/she didn't post the results. But, in my case, the starers suddenly turn their heads by a degree just enough for them to be considered not staring at me. They will turn their head by 180 degrees in the direction in which I suddenly look in...

This is subjective opinion, not objectively verifiable.

... As critical thinkers, our doubt must be reasonable. We must approach such claims using an open mind that adheres to the scientific method which made some extraordinary claims become scientific facts.

But your suggested protocol doesn't satisfy the requirements of a good scientific experiment - see previous criticisms.

I have no problem with asking the starers but I don't think it's necessary when there is an inexplicable correlation.

An unexplained correlation (if present) is not necessarily an inexplicable correlation - particularly if no effort is made to explain it! A good protocol removes doubt and negates the requirement for such interpretation and/or explanation.

Of course people who are looking in my precise direction are staring at me.

Interesting - you previously objected to well-controlled protocols on the grounds that looking in your precise direction was not necessarily staring at you, or was not enough for you to reliably detect. Does this mean we can revisit those protocols without this objection?

All I want for the staring is to be the natural staring that happens out of an internal motivation which also has a certain intensity that varies from person to person.

How can we determine whether any staring is 'natural' and due to a 'internal motivation of some (varying) intensity'? You will have to precisely define what you mean by this and how it can be controlled for, and frankly, I don't see how this is possible without mind-reading - which is not yet available to us.

I can't detect bored people who stare on demand, like what happens in the movies...

How do you propose we distinguish between the right kind of stares and the wrong kind?

You seem to have picked up some of the buzzwords of experimental design without an understanding of the fundamentals of the subject - despite all the explanations and criticisms provided in this thread.

 

[reason1]

This is subjective opinion, not objectively verifiable.

But your suggested protocol doesn't satisfy the requirements of a good scientific experiment - see previous criticisms.

An unexplained correlation (if present) is not necessarily an inexplicable correlation - particularly if no effort is made to explain it! A good protocol removes doubt and negates the requirement for such interpretation and/or explanation.

Although I don't think it's necessary, the detected starers will be asked if they were actually staring at me. OK?

Interesting - you previously objected to well-controlled protocols on the grounds that looking in your precise direction was not necessarily staring at you, or was not enough for you to reliably detect. Does this mean we ca revisit those protocols without this objection?

What I meant by then was the unnatural/acted/simulated/passive staring which I can't detect.

How can we determine whether any staring is 'natural' and due to a 'internal motivation of some (varying) intensity'? You will have to precisely define what you mean by this and how it can be controlled for, and frankly, I don't see how this is possible without mind-reading - which is not yet available to us.
How do you propose we distinguish between the right kind of stares and the wrong kind?

The staring that doesn't happen on demand is natural by the definition, and certainly it's internally motivated.

 

[Robert Oz]

reason1,

The following protocol I suggested several pages back seemed to address all of the problems with your protocol and would very likely be accepted (probably with some tweaking) by the JREF:

Okay, how about a scenario where an artist (chosen at random) has to sketch you based on the roll of a die. To sketch you realistically, an artist would have to focus on you. It would be impossible to sketch you realistically without focussing and actively staring. What do you think of this protocol, reason1?

Now we have:

1. Active staring;
2. Random choice of artist;
3. Forced focus on the subject being tested;
4. Self-evident result.

Even if the artist knows the purpose of the test, he/she needs to actively stare at you to draw you. I draw from time to time as a hobby and there is no way someone can draw you without actively staring and focussing on you quite intensely.

What do you think?

Note: I realise the artist has to turn away to look at the sketchpad from time to time, but I assure you the artist will be looking directly at you for more than enough time to constitute an active stare multiple times during the sketch.

Your replied to the above suggestion with:

Hi Robert , let me think about this for a while.

Can you please provide reasons why the above protocol would be unsuitable?

 

[Cuddles]

Although I don't think it's necessary, the detected starers will be asked if they were actually staring at me. OK?

What will you do if they say no?

 

[arthwollipot]

Although I don't think it's necessary, the detected starers will be asked if they were actually staring at me. OK?

More to the point, will they be asked why they were staring at you?

 

[TSR]

More to the point, will they be asked why they were staring at you?

.
Because, of course, no one will mind being asked that question and will be 100% honest for reason1's sake...
.

 

[dlorde]

Although I don't think it's necessary, the detected starers will be asked if they were actually staring at me. OK?

Unfortunately not OK. Unverifiable assumptions, subjective opinion and/or hearsay simply aren't acceptable evidence:

A: "Over there - did that guy just stare?"
B: "Looked like it, but I'm not sure, let's ask him."
A: "Excuse me sir, did you just stare at that man?"
C: "No, of course not... well, I did look at him, but I wouldn't say I was staring."
D: "Oh he's always staring at people, then looking away..."
C: "I do not!"
A: "Hmm, do we count this one?"
B: "I don't know - put it down as a 'maybe'...no wait, make it a 'yes'."

What I meant by then was the unnatural/acted/simulated/passive staring which I can't detect.

Which we can reliably and objectively distinguish from 'natural' staring how?

The staring that doesn't happen on demand is natural by the definition, and certainly it's internally motivated.

Would that include someone gazing at the back of your head, daydreaming or thinking about something else?

Amongst other things, a good protocol doesn't rely on promises, opinion, interpretation, or guesswork by the subject(s) or experimenters.