Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Michel H]

Physics =/= philosophy

However for once I agree with you.

Physics =/= philosophy

I think you've made a common mistake here.

The term "Philosophy" in "Ph.D" is NOT the subject, its the level of achievement in a subject.

You can have a PhD in Physics, Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, etc.

I think smartcooky is right (thank you, smartcooky). However, for Yes Nay_Sayer (and also fromdownunder), here is an example of an article I published, in Nuclear Physics A:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375947485902052
I noticed also that my Ph.D. thesis is mentioned in Google Books:
http://books.google.be/books/about/...copic_Theory.html?id=eEeNtgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

 

[AdMan]

Here is a photo of my diploma:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5799352800a99025c0.png[/qimg]
It says:
The Regents of the University of Minnesota, on recommendation of the faculty, have conferred upon Michel Hanck the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with all its privileges and obligations (1987).
Now, don't exaggerate the importance of this degree, I think it is unreasonable to judge a person from just a degree. There may be lots of good people with no university or college degree.

What happened to you? Why have you ditched science?

This is a very good question.

 

[Iamme]

For some interesting reading you can google 2 things: ``Has anybody ever proven telepathy?``....and, ``the N`kisi project``(which has been discussed here like 7-10? years ago, and maybe could be archived?)

 

[dafydd]

For some interesting reading you can google 2 things: ``Has anybody ever proven telepathy?``

The answer to that is no.

 

[Iamme]

If they did, they could have won the JREF million dollar challenge....or WOULD they? (I have always contended that it never be paid out...that no woo would ever be accepted as proven even if it was proven. That there`d be some excuse saying there is no proof even if there was proof. That`s just my personal opinion.)

 

[AdMan]

If they did, they could have won the JREF million dollar challenge....or WOULD they? (I have always contended that it never be paid out...that no woo would ever be accepted as proven even if it was proven. That there`d be some excuse saying there is no proof even if there was proof. That`s just my personal opinion.)

What do you base this opinion on? You do know how the MDC is run, right?

 

[Iamme]

Would the good Dr. Michel be so kind to tell us what this other project is?, that you havent had time to write the paper on yet? Start a new thread on this if you would, please. I`m sure there are a lot more than just me that be very interested.

 

[TheSapient]

Here is a photo of my diploma:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5799352800a99025c0.png[/qimg]
It says:
The Regents of the University of Minnesota, on recommendation of the faculty, have conferred upon Michel Hanck the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with all its privileges and obligations (1987).
Now, don't exaggerate the importance of this degree, I think it is unreasonable to judge a person from just a degree. There may be lots of good people with no university or college degree.

"Don't exaggerate" is very negative. That means the credibility rating for your evidence is -10.

Please post credible evidence of your degree.

 

[Iamme]

Adman, its been 10 years since i read it. I think there is a third party involved and the money is escrowed in some account. But refresh me who has the final say that spmeone or group should be awarded the prize?; a panel where Randi himself cant hold back on the check? but no need to derail the thread on this. This is just something i brought up on a side note, so to speak.

 

[AdMan]

Adman, its been 10 years since i read it. I think there is a third party involved and the money is escrowed in some account. But refresh me who has the final say that spmeone or group should be awarded the prize?; a panel where Randi himself cant hold back on the check? but no need to derail the thread on this. This is just something i brought up on a side note, so to speak.

Well, don't want to derail the thread, but as I understand it the protocol for an MDC test needs to be agreed upon by both parties, and at that point a contract is written up and signed. If the claimant passes the test according to what was previously agreed, the JREF would be in breach of contract and in legal trouble if they didn't pay up. That's why I was wondering why you doubted the $1M would ever be paid out, even if the claimant proved their claims according to the mutually agreed-upon protocol.

In any case, this is a discussion for another thread and subforum. Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Michel H]

Would the good Dr. Michel be so kind to tell us what this other project is?, that you havent had time to write the paper on yet? Start a new thread on this if you would, please. I`m sure there are a lot more than just me that be very interested.

Yes, sure. It's mostly about Quantum Mechanics (and Quantum Field Theory). I found some apparently pretty solid reasons to believe that Quantum Mechanics can actually be derived from classical electrodynamics (this is a position very different from the current one, where the Schrödinger equation is postulated). I also have a good reason (I think) to believe that the Special Theory of Relativity is incorrect (although usually quite accurate).

 

[AdMan]

I also have a good reason (I think) to believe that the Special Theory of Relativity is incorrect (although usually quite accurate).

Are you trying to apply a Credibility Rating to SR?

 

[smartcooky]

What happened to you? Why have you ditched science?

This is a very good question.

I don't think there is anything particularly untoward or wrong just because a scientist experiments with or studies ESP or some other "fringe" area.

I have a good friend who is an astrophysicist, a Professor at a University in England, and whose research interests include stellar nucleosynthesis, stellar evolution, big bang nucleosynthesis and the chemical evolution of galaxies. He is also a Christian; always has been for all the time I have known him right back to the 1970s and 80s when we were both members of the same Astronomical Society, and I assisted him with his Masters thesis on variable supergiant stars by using the Society's photoelectric telescope to gather light curve data on RY Sagittarius.

I do not consider for one moment that he ever "ditched science" just because he believes in God!

I also am a firm believer in Carl Sagan's credo "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavour of science".

 

[Dan O.]

The OP has the makings for a greate scam. Michel, do you know Marcus? You should tell him that his domain expires this month.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't think there is anything particularly untoward or wrong just because a scientist experiments with or studies ESP or some other "fringe" area.

It's not the interest, or even belief, in telepathy that's drawing flak here so much as the appallingly unscientific way in which this 'experiment' has been conducted.

 

[Pixel42]

But refresh me who has the final say that spmeone or group should be awarded the prize?; a panel where Randi himself cant hold back on the check?

It is a requirement of the challenge that no subjective judgement by anyone must be used, the result must be self evident. The protocol and success criteria are agreed in advance. Usually the success criteria is set at odds of 1 in 1000 of achieving the result by chance.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not the interest, or even belief, in telepathy that's drawing flak here so much as the appallingly unscientific way in which this 'experiment' has been conducted.

Working within the limitations of a public forum was always going to be a problem. IMO. It would have solved a lot of problems if it had been possible to post a poll that does not show the progress of the vote and only shows the results when the poll is closed. Then he could simply have sent his chosen number via PM to two trusted volunteers who would themselves undertake not to participate in the poll.

Certainly not water-tight by any means, but a lot better that what he been suggested here.

 

[Dan O.]

It is a requirement of the challenge that no subjective judgement by anyone must be used, the result must be self evident. The protocol and success criteria are agreed in advance. Usually the success criteria is set at odds of 1 in 1000 of achieving the result by chance.

You are totally wrong. The test subject is allowed to make subjective judgments. The protocol in the op is valid. What has not been negotiated is the criteria for success and this cannot be negotiated without the subject running some trials of the protocol to determin his expected success rate.

What has been demonstrated is that the vast majority of "skeptics" fail at comprehending or following the protocol and none of them noticed the hole that would allow an unscrupulous subject cheat. Instead, I noticed the typical zeal of the "skeptics" trying to chastise the OP. It's quite pathetic really. I don't know why Randi allows this forum to continue.

 

[AdMan]

It's not the interest, or even belief, in telepathy that's drawing flak here so much as the appallingly unscientific way in which this 'experiment' has been conducted.

Exactly.

 

[Pixel42]

You are totally wrong. The test subject is allowed to make subjective judgments.

I meant that no-one (whether Randi, the claimant or a third party judge) is allowed to make a subjective judgement about whether or not the test was a success or a failure. That is the question that was being asked.

The protocol in the op is valid.

I never said it wasn't. Michel's previous tests weren't, but I agree with Agatha that this one was a considerable improvement, though it was still a long way from the sort of protocol that would be accepted for a real MDC test. I can understand why some posters thought it was a sufficiently big step forward to be encouraged but I had severe doubts that it would enable any genuine progress to be made - doubts that have sadly proved to be justified.