Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[Dan O.]

Randi has a perfectly valid test for dowsing. Why don't all the applicants just take that test instead of mucking about with designing their own protocol?


The answer is that not all the applicants are claiming to be able to dowse.

 

[Dan O.]

Please cite the peer-reviewed studies that support these claims.

That is a typical "skeptic" response to what was presented as only a personal observation. Randi has taught you well.

 

[AdMan]

Randi has a perfectly valid test for dowsing. Why don't all the applicants just take that test instead of mucking about with designing their own protocol?


The answer is that not all the applicants are claiming to be able to dowse.

Gee, that was helpful.

Who are you responding to?

 

[AdMan]

That is a typical "skeptic" response to what was presented as only a personal observation. Randi has taught you well.

It was a response to a claim by someone who's claimed in this thread that he has a PhD in physics, and supposedly has a scientific approach to the subject.

If you disagree with looking at things scientifically, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

 

[Dan O.]

Why not design a protocol that doesn't involve you judging the credibility of the answers after you know what they are?

If "skeptics” could follow instructions there wouldn't have been any problem.

Why not leave out judging altogether?

Michel has explained why the rating is necessary multiple times.

 

[Dan O.]

It was a response to a claim by someone who's claimed in this thread that he has a PhD in physics, and supposedly has a scientific approach to the subject.

If you disagree with looking at things scientifically, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

What's not scientific about Michel's test?

 

[AdMan]

Michel has explained why the rating is necessary multiple times.

Yes, it's clear he needs it to ensure the results come out the way he wants.

 

[AdMan]

What's not scientific about Michel's test?

Are you serious? As has been pointed out numerous times, assigning a subjective "Credibility Rating" is completely unscientific.

Are you trolling?

 

[Dan O.]

Gee, that was helpful.

Who are you responding to?

Multiple posters that think they can make major changes to the protocol and not affect what it is testing. You being just one of them.

 

[AdMan]

Yeah, you're trolling.

Not wasting my time on you.

Bye bye.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes, I presume that's what's happening. There seems to exist a strong telepathic phenomenon, and failures in tests generally seem to result more from an unwillingness to fully cooperate than from somehow a lack of telepathic signal.

Every time you've run a test I've sat quietly and genuinely tried to "hear" a particular number between 1 and 4. Every time I heard nothing, and knew that in order to take part in your test I would have to pick a number completely at random, so I didn't bother. I assume that everybody who did take part in your test (rather than make fun of it) also heard nothing and simply chose the first number between 1 and 4 that came to mind. The results of this latest experiment support my assumption, not yours.

Perhaps those posters who both gave what turned out to be the right answer and whom you assessed as credible could now describe why they actually chose the number they gave. If they say they really did "hear" a particular number, I will reconsider. If they all say that they "heard" nothing but simply chose a number between 1 and 4 at random, will you reconsider?

 

[AdMan]

Perhaps those posters who both gave what turned out to be the right answer and whom you assessed as credible could now describe why they actually chose the number they gave. If they say they really did "hear" a particular number, I will reconsider. If they all say that they "heard" nothing but simply chose a number between 1 and 4 at random, will you reconsider?

This kind of post-test analysis does not belong in a proper scientific test unless it was part of the original protocol. Too much "noise" involved. It will just help to confuse things, unfortunately.

 

[Dan O.]

As has been pointed out numerous times, assigning a subjective "Credibility Rating" is completely unscientific.

Is that just the opinion of the posters or can it be backed by peer-reviewed literaturee?

 

[Pixel42]

This kind of post-test analysis does not belong in a proper scientific test unless it was part of the original protocol. Too much "noise" involved. It will just help to confuse things, unfortunately.

I'm not suggesting it as part of the test, but as a way that Michel can check the assumptions on which he based its design.

 

[AdMan]

I'm not suggesting it as part of the test, but as a way that Michel can check the assumptions on which he based its design.

OK, I understand. I doubt it will help Michel in any way, but hope springs eternal.

 

[Pixel42]

Are you serious? As has been pointed out numerous times, assigning a subjective "Credibility Rating" is completely unscientific.

Assigning a credibility rating to the posters after it has been revealed which guessed correctly is unscientific, which is why the first couple of tests were worthless, but this test ensured that Michel assigned his credibility ratings before he knew whether they had given the right answer. This made the test protocol acceptable, and its results as meaningful as such a small sample could be.

Obviously Michel's second assignment of credibility ratings, done after the results were revealed, is as unscientific as the ones he did in his first tests, and likewise utterly worthless.

 

[Dan O.]

Every time you've run a test I've sat quietly and genuinely tried to "hear" a particular number between 1 and 4. Every time I heard nothing, and knew that in order to take part in your test I would have to pick a number completely at random, so I didn't bother. I assume that everybody who did take part in your test (rather than make fun of it) also heard nothing and simply chose the first number between 1 and 4 that came to mind. The results of this latest experiment support my assumption, not yours.

Perhaps those posters who both gave what turned out to be the right answer and whom you assessed as credible could now describe why they actually chose the number they gave. If they say they really did "hear" a particular number, I will reconsider. If they all say that they "heard" nothing but simply chose a number between 1 and 4 at random, will you reconsider?

If you don't normally "hear" voices in your head, why would you suddenly expect to hear this particular voice announcing a number from 1 to 4?

I'm not sure Michel heard your earlier question. Taking his answer at face value, he would be in essence saying that everybody is telepathic and they know it but because of the social stigma they hide it completely. This interpretation of the world is just too bizaar to contemplate. Besides, it would make me feel like the odd one.

If telepathic reception is not something we are consciously aware of, we would have to pull the answer from our unconscious. This is the element of writing the first statement that comes to mind about the first number that comes to mind. If your mind is in sync with Michel's at that time, he will register a high credibility for your statement and if his theory is correct, the high credibility for the statement will cooralate with the correctness of the number.

It would not be difficult to work out a protocol so there is no retroactive changing of the credibility scores after the received numbers are known. And there are plenty of statisticians that could provide the formulas to convert the raw numbers into a test result that determines if the claim was demonstrated to better than 1000:1 odds.

But I'm going to rain on your and Michel's parade and say right now that there is no way that the JREF MDC would ever accept this test. The problem is that there can be a cooralation between the statement and the number contained in the statement that would allow the claimant to score better than chance and there is no way to separate these two elements.

 

[Pixel42]

If you don't normally "hear" voices in your head, why would you suddenly expect to hear this particular voice announcing a number from 1 to 4?

Michel was claiming that I would somehow be able to tell which number he was transmitting, so to be fair to him I made the attempt to "hear" a number. If I had got any impression of one particular number (not necessarily as a voice saying it, just an impulse to pick one number rather than any other would have done) I would have participated in the test.

I'm not sure Michel heard your earlier question. Taking his answer at face value, he would be in essence saying that everybody is telepathic and they know it but because of the social stigma they hide it completely.

I think that is exactly what he is saying, yes. I originally thought the credibility ratings were just to exclude those who hadn't made a genuine attempt to "hear" his telepathic transmission, but it seems he thinks everybody is actually receiving them and some are choosing to lie about doing so.

We had another guy here a while back who was trying to figure out a way of using a lie detector in a test protocol for telepathy, because he too was convinced everyone was hearing his thoughts so those who said they weren't must be lying.

This interpretation of the world is just too bizaar to contemplate. Besides, it would make me feel like the odd one.

The belief that other people are hearing your thoughts but are lying about doing so may seem bizarre, but quite a few people seem to have it. It's usually a symptom of a mental illness such as schizophrenia.

If telepathic reception is not something we are consciously aware of, we would have to pull the answer from our unconscious. This is the element of writing the first statement that comes to mind about the first number that comes to mind. If your mind is in sync with Michel's at that time, he will register a high credibility for your statement and if his theory is correct, the high credibility for the statement will cooralate with the correctness of the number.

That was what I originally thought his reasoning was too, but it appears I was wrong.

It would not be difficult to work out a protocol so there is no retroactive changing of the credibility scores after the received numbers are known. And there are plenty of statisticians that could provide the formulas to convert the raw numbers into a test result that determines if the claim was demonstrated to better than 1000:1 odds.

The protocol in the OP seemed to be a step towards that, but Michel's abandonment of it as soon as it was clear it would not give the answer he wanted suggests he is not really interested in coming up with a scientifically rigorous protocol.

But I'm going to rain on your and Michel's parade and say right now that there is no way that the JREF MDC would ever accept this test. The problem is that there can be a cooralation between the statement and the number contained in the statement that would allow the claimant to score better than chance and there is no way to separate these two elements.

Not sure what you mean by that. What statement?

 

[dafydd]

What's not scientific about Michel's test?

Please at least make an attempt to be serious.

 

[Michel H]

Michel was claiming that I would somehow be able to tell which number he was transmitting, so to be fair to him I made the attempt to "hear" a number. If I had got any impression of one particular number (not necessarily as a voice saying it, just an impulse to pick one number rather than any other would have done) I would have participated in the test.
...

You are welcome to participate in the test, Pixel42, like other forum members are. If you really think you have perceived no number from me via telepathy, you may then answer "I don't know":

... You may also answer "I don't know".
...

. And perhaps also , one day, the "miracle" will happen, you'll be able to say my number credibly (?).
Be warned it is quite possible I examine your answer carefully for credibility, your opinions seem to vary (although you seem to be a careful person). It is not my goal to try to impose a certain point of view to others here, especially if it is wrong, people are entitled to their free opinions. I see myself as a "scientist" and a truthseeker. Don't forget you have a personal responsability, like others. I hope you're not getting paid by the pharmaceutical industry to spread and promote lies (frankly, I doubt it). If I do a rigorous test again on this forum, I will probably emphasize more that, if the text sent to the assistant is any different from the posted one, the answer will be considered as protocol violating (although it will still be considered with great interest). One of my goals is to keep improving the "protocol" with regard to rigor and clarity, while keeping it simple and pleasant (if possible). And all smart suggestions for improvement are of course welcome.