Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Looking for Skeptics
- Thread starter Cassidy
- Start date
- Status
If Paredolia isn't a suffering, and assuming I have Paredolia, then why am I experiencing Paradolia to the point of suffering?
There is plenty of genuine people out there that cannot catch evidence, not explain something they cannot understand. Often it is an illness. I must go see these posts. Thank u for pointing it out.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It would be more important for you to remain silent and not be in her view than the other way around, since it would be you, not her, who would see the cards.
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Hi. It took me most of the day to read this from the start of the thread with a lot of skimming. How did I get here? I thought of a possible experiment, and looked on the challenge site – suddenly what I have done last week becomes relevant.
To calculate the odds you need to use the binomial distribution probability (BDF) formula. Odds are the reciprocal of the BDF.
BDF= {N!/((N-X)!*X!)} * (p**X) * {(1-p)**(N-X)}
You can find this on an Exel spreadsheet under BINOMDIST(X, N, p, FALSE). X is the number of hits, N is the number of attempts, p is the probability per choice (=1/number of choices), and D is set to FALSE.
If you remove the first card, then the second card, and so on, then the formula does not work, and you need another formula. Either put the chosen card back and shuffle , or accept the BDF is an approximation for a low number of attempts, or use the correct formula.
If a 52 card deck is used and the card must be fully identified eg Ace of Hearts, Two of Spades, then p is 1/52. If there are three tries then N = 3. The following odds apply
None correct ( X = 0) the odds are 1.06 to 1 against a chance of success
One correct ( X = 1) the odds are 18 to 1 against a chance of success
Two correct ( X = 2) the odds are 919 to 1 against a chance of success
Three correct ( X = 3) the odds are 140,000 to 1 against a chance of success
If flaccon gets none correct (the most probable result) and asks for another test, then one could start with a “clean slate” and accept the same odds.
Strictly speaking a new test means 6 attempts (N=6) with results summed ie 0+0, 0+1,0+2, and 0+3.
These odds are: 1.12; 9.5; 194; and 7,452.
To calculate the odds you need to use the binomial distribution probability (BDF) formula. Odds are the reciprocal of the BDF.
Thread : My Zener card experiment
Started at 20th July 2007 06:47 AM by Seismosaurus
Visit at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87775
Started at 20th July 2007 06:47 AM by Seismosaurus
Visit at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87775
BDF= {N!/((N-X)!*X!)} * (p**X) * {(1-p)**(N-X)}
You can find this on an Exel spreadsheet under BINOMDIST(X, N, p, FALSE). X is the number of hits, N is the number of attempts, p is the probability per choice (=1/number of choices), and D is set to FALSE.
If you remove the first card, then the second card, and so on, then the formula does not work, and you need another formula. Either put the chosen card back and shuffle , or accept the BDF is an approximation for a low number of attempts, or use the correct formula.
If a 52 card deck is used and the card must be fully identified eg Ace of Hearts, Two of Spades, then p is 1/52. If there are three tries then N = 3. The following odds apply
None correct ( X = 0) the odds are 1.06 to 1 against a chance of success
One correct ( X = 1) the odds are 18 to 1 against a chance of success
Two correct ( X = 2) the odds are 919 to 1 against a chance of success
Three correct ( X = 3) the odds are 140,000 to 1 against a chance of success
If flaccon gets none correct (the most probable result) and asks for another test, then one could start with a “clean slate” and accept the same odds.
Strictly speaking a new test means 6 attempts (N=6) with results summed ie 0+0, 0+1,0+2, and 0+3.
These odds are: 1.12; 9.5; 194; and 7,452.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Usually because they don't have the necessary knowledge (of human psychology, probability theory etc) to realise that no supernatural explanation of their experiences is required.
Sometimes, yes. We've certainly had a few who were clearly schizophrenic. But usually it's just ignorance. The problem is that they are usually so emotionally invested in their supernatual interpretation of their experiences that, even when given the necessary knowledge and understanding to work out what's really going on, they still reject alternative explanations.
Last edited:
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
The above description could actually fit me, and my wife who believes in God, so I can certainly understand how normalness and believing in the supernatural can fit together. I know lots of superstitious, religious, or "spiritual" people whom I'd consider still solidly normal.
"Normal" is of course subjective, and open to a wide range of definitions. But personally, I'd consider what's described in the following post not to be normal, or at least not the kind of "normal" I'd want to be part of:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9275483&postcount=458
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
DO you have better evidence than the recording you sent me?
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
Another comment. People "sub-vocalize" when concentrating or reading, and other people can subliminally hear them.
As mentioned, any reflective surface no matter how small should be eliminated.
Being in the same room is not a good idea. Visual body clues can communicate a huge amount of information.
But an informal test is a good idea, no matter the possible flaws.
As mentioned, any reflective surface no matter how small should be eliminated.
Being in the same room is not a good idea. Visual body clues can communicate a huge amount of information.
But an informal test is a good idea, no matter the possible flaws.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
In the story on your site you mention the visit to your GP. He was initially worried that he wouldn't be able to hear the voices at all over the sound of his secretaries next door, but you assured him it would be fine. Then you made some new recordings, despite the noise.
Alderbank
Critical Thinker
I am now really looking forward to this evening. However I am a little uncomfortable that I haven't got a clear, agreed protocol to work to.
I propose for starters that I use jsfisher's protocol in which Kate hears and records the name of each card and I observe and do my best to run everything fairly. I have a new sealed pack of cards and I expect each card to be identified by both value and suit as either by symbols (3H; QD) or written words (four of spades). Picture cards are J or Jack (not Knave); Q or Queen and K or King. Ace is either Ace or A. I am happy to incorporate any reasonable changes to this protocol which increase its robustness
Could somebody take on the responsibility of collating the final and agreed version so that I can print it off before the test begins?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Here's jsfisher's protocol with the suggested improvements incorporated.
1. Alderbank selects a card from his pack at random and allows flaccon to view it, without looking at it himself
2. flaccon asks the spirits to identify it, then she listens to the recording playback to hear the card correctly identified. She repeats this up to four times, until she is satisfied that she has a usable recording. If she has still not succeeded then that card and recording are discarded
3. If the recording is deemed acceptable, Alderbank will seal the card in a numbered envelope (still without looking at it) and set it to one side. The recording file should be named CARD1.WAV and placed in a directory with no other files on flaccon's computer. flaccon should make her own private note of which card was identified in each file.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 until at least 3 usable recordings - CARD1.WAV, CARD2.WAV and CARD3.WAV - are available. If after 90 minutes this has not proved possible then the test protocol is deemed unworkable and the test abandoned
5. The computer is left set up so the individual recordings can be easily played for flaccon's friend. Alderbank looks over the computer screen and the general area around it for any (presumably unintended) clues to the cards' identities.
6. flaccon leaves and the friend is brought in.
7. Alderbank will open the first envelope and show the first card to the friend. He will then replay the first recording, and the friend will verify that he/she can hear it being identified in the recording. If he/she cannot verify this then the test protocol is deemed unworkable and the test abandoned.
8. Alderbank will then replay each of the other two recordings for the friend, one at a time, and allow the friend to name the corresponding card from the recording. If this takes longer than 20 minutes that card is abandoned. If the friend thinks they have heard the card's identification successfully Alderbank will write the card name provided by the friend on the corresponding envelope. Both suit and number of the card must be identified. ETA: If the friend cannot hear the identity of at least one of the two cards in its corresponding recording then the test protocol is deemed unworkable and the test abandoned
9. Once all three cards have been handled, flaccon will be brought back in and Alderbank will open the envelopes and permit both flaccon and the friend to compare the cards to what the friend heard on the recordings.
Success criteria: at least one of the two cards should be successfully identified (both suit and number) for further investigation to be deemed warranted
Last edited:
Alderbank
Critical Thinker
Much appreciated, Pixel.
flaccon, is this protocol all right with you?
flaccon, is this protocol all right with you?
Let's go for it
I have been trying Kate's number all day, will keep trying. However if to no avail, the test is hopefully being skyped yes?Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Let's go for it
?????
Kate is your daughter, right?
How can you say "let's go for it" if you haven't been able to get in touch with her and don't know if she's available or willing? She is an integral part of the protocol.
I really think you either do not take any of this seriously or you flat out do not understand what's being said to you.
Let's go for it
And once again, a disconnect appears. You guys have managed to get in the same book, but are still far from the same page.
Alderbank, you are by far a brave fellow, and the very reason why I confronted sceptics. Sceptics are not afraid.
Alderbank
Critical Thinker
For some reason this thread keeps reminding me of Duncan Bannatyne's story The Dog Ate My Trainers http://ridgewaymarketeer.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/the-dog-ate-my-trainers/
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Let's go for it
flaccon,
Do you realize that if you agree to some protocol, that's going to be the "rules?"
The protocol will be raised again and again, like a contract, as a way to decide whether what you claim is so or not. If you are only agreeing to it to be nice or without understanding why it says what it says, you will regret it later. Many have.
Do you realize that if you agree to some protocol, that's going to be the "rules?"
The protocol will be raised again and again, like a contract, as a way to decide whether what you claim is so or not. If you are only agreeing to it to be nice or without understanding why it says what it says, you will regret it later. Many have.
The bolded part makes me think you're missing the whole point of science.
You can't explain something you don't understand.
Science builds up what it calls "models" -- explanations -- of the world around us. Then it compares those models to what actually happens to see if there's anything unpredictable happening.
If what we observe matches what we predict, we don't try to make up another explanation for it, because matching the prediction shows the explanation we already have works perfectly well.
Your certainty that the spirits are giving you correct information is what convinces you they exist. But you can't know they're correct unless you already have the answer in your brain.
Hearing voices telling you information you already know is explained perfectly well by pareidoila. We understand how pareidolia works, and when to expect it. So we have an explanation, and have no need of another one, because this observation fits our existing explanation.
Now, if you can hear voices giving you correct information that you can't have gotten any other way, then that won't be explained by pareidolia, and everyone will be excited and pleased to start looking for an explanation. If it turns out to be spirits, fine. If it turns out to be something else, that will be fine with us, too.
All the protocols that have been presented here are simply to try to rule out our current explanation.
We're not trying to tell you you're wrong. We're actively trying to find something that doesn't fit our current model, and would make us wrong.
Now, it could be that while spirits exist, their capabilities are indistinguishable from pareidolia. In which case science isn't going to help, because science doesn't need another explanation for people hearing voices in noise.
/.
- Status