Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alderbank said:
Let's get back to the test... What would success be for you and what would be failure? How would it be decided?
Click to expand...

Your enthusiasm is wonderful flaccon and I'm really looking forward to working with you but you are so excited that you change the game with every post!

There is no need for a test to see if there is anything worth investigating. I have already agreed it is worth investigating and 700 posts in a couple of days confirms that.

Crucially you never say objectively what outcome would be success and what would be failure. I have no doubt you will play me a recording and I will hear voices. That will not indicate a success. Nor will anything that relies on my opinion

Think about all your ideas, and those of others such as Pixel42 above, consider which would best demonstrate that spirits exist and have voices, and decide what is success and what is a fail. That is essential. The good news is that forumites here are both able and willing to help with that. Once we agree on a fair test we are all set to go.
 
For what it's worth here is my two bits about what success of failure would mean. Firstly, failure for you certainly would not mean you are dishonest or a cheat and would not necessarily mean you are wrong although you should consider that possibility. It only means that the test chosen did not demonstrate what you thought to be true. Similarly, success would not be proof of much by itself but it would assure you of a massive audience the next time you demonstrate it and each subsequent success would confirm that you had discovered something new and unique
 
wardenclyffe said:
I asked about the quoting problem today in Forum Management:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260059

I'll confess I don't really understand the reply and don't know what to do to stop the problem from happening.
Click to expand...
It's what Orphia Nay said, flaccon is deleting the closing ']' character on the quote tag.

But I don't think flaccon is doing anything wrong (nor was I or others yesterday), but something's messed up.
Click to expand...
It appears she is, albeit maybe inadvertently. The problem is propagated when the message is quoted and replied to.
 
flaccon said:
It's ok, we know to do a good few fresh recordings, done in a silent room.
Click to expand...

Fresh recordings could work as a very, very simple first test. Make 10 fresh recordings, while Alderbank is present. Listen to each several times while remaining absolutely silent. You and Alderbank both write down what you think you hear, while not letting each other see your answers. If 7 or more out of 10 of the phrases that you both write down match, then that counts as a successful test. If you speak, make any noise, try to look at Alderbank's answers, or try to show him yours, or less than 7 answers match, then that counts as a failure.

Agreed?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
It's what Orphia Nay said, flaccon is deleting the closing ']' character on the quote tag.


It appears she is, albeit maybe inadvertently. The problem is propagated when the message is quoted and replied to.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently I was doing the same thing yesterday and so was everyone else if you look at yesterday morning's posts. It was all very confusing.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
Well, apparently I was doing the same thing yesterday and so was everyone else if you look at yesterday morning's posts. It was all very confusing.

Ward
Click to expand...

Because flaccon had done the same thing in this post, which got quoted by Alderbank, and that in turn was replied to. The dropped ']' means the first [quote] is not closed. This gets propagated each time quoting happens, so all the subsequent posts have a missing closing [/quote], which throws all the attributions out.
 
wardenclyffe said:
Well, apparently I was doing the same thing yesterday and so was everyone else if you look at yesterday morning's posts. It was all very confusing.

Ward
Click to expand...

I think one person missed the full final quote tag and then all those quoting it subsequently repeated the error.
 
zooterkin said:
Because flaccon had done the same thing in this post, which got quoted by Alderbank, and that in turn was replied to. The dropped ']' means the first , which throws all the attributions out.
Click to expand...

Am I replying correctly? I'm not sure. I click the reply tab, should I be clicking the quote tab?
 
flaccon said:
Am I replying correctly? I'm not sure. I click the reply tab, should I be clicking the quote tab?
Click to expand...

If you're clicking the Reply tab, how are you including the quote?


That's not really the point; in editing your reply, you are somehow losing the ']' character from the end of the quoted section. (I also noticed that 'quote' was in lower case and '/QUOTE' was in upper case in one example. Are you cutting and pasting from somewhere, and then fixing it up?)

You can also use the Preview Post button to check how it looks, or check after you post, and then edit it to fix any problems.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Fresh recordings could work as a very, very simple first test. Make 10 fresh recordings, while Alderbank is present. Listen to each several times while remaining absolutely silent. You and Alderbank both write down what you think you hear, while not letting each other see your answers. If 7 or more out of 10 of the phrases that you both write down match, then that counts as a successful test. If you speak, make any noise, try to look at Alderbank's answers, or try to show him yours, or less than 7 answers match, then that counts as a failure.

Agreed?
Click to expand...

Only slight problems with this test, the birds outside, and the reception on the evening. However, there are over 3000 pre recorded messages, capable of producing firm results. I will take Alderbank through the clearest of pre recorded messages, where the spirit-voices are identical to our voices, and not overlapped by other spirit-voices. (This happens when reception is at best) Also introduce Alderbank to the different types of voices (one of the voices is raw electronic) This will familiarise Alderbank, with what the fresh recordings could sound like, given when the reception, birds etc are at best.
 
zooterkin said:
If you're clicking the Reply tab, how are you including the quote?


That's not really the point; in editing your reply, you are somehow losing the ']' character from the end of the quoted section. (I also noticed that 'quote' was in lower case and '/QUOTE' was in upper case in one example. Are you cutting and pasting from somewhere, and then fixing it up?)

You can also use the Preview Post button to check how it looks, or check after you post, and then edit it to fix any problems.
Click to expand...

Lower case "quote" not a clue about. No idea how the "quotes" are included, I reply to posts via the reply tab. No copy & pasting, all replies are live-written.
 
flaccon said:
Only slight problems with this test, the birds outside, and the reception on the evening. However, there are over 3000 pre recorded messages, capable of producing firm results. I will take Alderbank through the clearest of pre recorded messages, where the spirit-voices are identical to our voices, and not overlapped by other spirit-voices. (This happens when reception is at best) Also introduce Alderbank to the different types of voices (one of the voices is raw electronic) This will familiarise Alderbank, with what the fresh recordings could sound like, given when the reception, birds etc are at best.
Click to expand...

There should be no familiarizing or prompting. The messages are clearly there or they aren't.
 
flaccon said:
Only slight problems with this test, the birds outside, and the reception on the evening. However, there are over 3000 pre recorded messages, capable of producing firm results. I will take Alderbank through the clearest of pre recorded messages, where the spirit-voices are identical to our voices, and not overlapped by other spirit-voices. (This happens when reception is at best) Also introduce Alderbank to the different types of voices (one of the voices is raw electronic) This will familiarise Alderbank, with what the fresh recordings could sound like, given when the reception, birds etc are at best.
Click to expand...

You should randomly throw in a few recordings that you have made that don't have voices. That is if you have any.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom