Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dafydd said:
He comes here with a claim that he is telepathic, we ask him for proof and part of the proof is that he claims that he is telepathic. There's flaw there. Surely a scientist would spot it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. By his own admission, he does not consider results from people who report not getting a telepathic message from him. His test is not what he claims it is. He starts with the following assumptions.

1) Everyone gets a telepathic message from him.
2) Honest people report his number accurately.
3) Dishonest people report his number inaccurately.

And then he uses his credibility system, which compares people's answers to his number and declares them honest or dishonest. His test does not measure his telepathic ability. It attempts to measure other people's honesty. And SURPRISE! People are honest in the ration 1/n where n is the number of possible answers in his test.
 
Hokulele said:
If you can communicate, "I don't know" means no communication happened, so it would be a miss as far as demonstrating communication is concerned.
Click to expand...
You might want to take a look at this Glossary of Parapsychology, where the terms "hit" and "miss" are defined. And I don't think I need to recalculate my "hit rates", to somehow include "I don't know" answers.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
You might want to take a look at this Glossary of Parapsychology, where the terms "hit" and "miss" are defined. And I don't think I need to recalculate my "hit rates" to somehow include "I don't know" answers.
Click to expand...

You begin by assuming that you are telepathic, that is not scientific. Your test was a joke from start to finish. You assume that we all recieved your transmitted number. Divest yourself of this delusion.
 
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?
 
Dan O. said:
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation.
Click to expand...

I'll stop you right there. There is no need for an analogy when we can talk about this test directly. Michel is claiming to be able to send thoughts into other people's heads. If we want to test this claim, we have to accept results where he has failed to send thoughts into another person's head.
 
Dan O. said:
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the cheap insult, what does that have to do with Michael assuming that we can hear his thoughts and his ignoring the misses? Answer, sod all.
 
Dan O, do you actually believe that Michael can broadcast his thoughts to others?
 
Dan O. said:
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?
Click to expand...


In your analogy, the bettor, the analogized receiver, chooses not to play. An answer of, "I don't know" is choosing to play. Your analogy works only for those who read the OP and didn't make any answer at all.

In my defense, he wanted an honest answer. Had I answered one of the four numbers, I would have lied, and therefore caused his numbers to go out of whack.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Such an echo in here it's difficult to tell who is actually talking and what is just reflections off the wall.

On the choice to discard results before they are measured, let's again look at a gambling situation. In a hypothetical game in which one player attempts to draw a card that matches the suit of the card the dealer drew, there are two betting options: a bet may be placed on "Match" which will pay 3 to 1 if the two cards match. Alternatively, a bet may be placed on "Don't Match“ which pays 1 to 3 if the cards don't match. In each round, the player can bet from one to 10 coins on "Match" or from 3 to 30 coins in multiples of 3 on ”Don't Match". Or the player may chose to pass for that round and not place a bet. If after playing for a week the play is up by one million coins, will the casino declare that the result is invalid because the player chose not to place a bet for many of the rounds?
Click to expand...
Sure, except the "I don't know" folks are betting on the joker, or the bridge rules cards coming up in your analogy. The only ones not placing a bet are non-respondents who provide no answer at all.

The "I don't know" answers are equally valid, as they reflect a failure of the transmitter to transmit anything at all. If you wish to exclude such, then we can simply take Michel's criteria and extend them just a little to eliminate all but the two "correct" answers and proceed to claim a 100% success rate. The only reason this was not done by Michel is that he knew full well that there would be an avalanche to fall upon him, so he carefully did not eliminate all confounding answers in an attempt to shore up a failed test. It's a pretty cynical practice to engage with.

ETA: Quadruple ninjad. LOL.
 
Last edited:
TheSapient said:
I'll stop you right there. There is no need for an analogy when we can talk about this test directly. Michel is claiming to be able to send thoughts into other people's heads. If we want to test this claim, we have to accept results where he has failed to send thoughts into another person's head.
Click to expand...


If you want to test his claim you need to listen to preciesly what his claim is. You cannot test your interpretation of his claim and pretend that has any relevance.

His claim requires an evaluation to the receiver's credibility. If you strip that out you are altering the claim so you might as well just hand him a pair of dowsing rods.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
If you want to test his claim you need to listen to preciesly what his claim is. You cannot test your interpretation of his claim and pretend that has any significance.

His claim requires an evaluation to the receiver's credibility. If you strip that out you are altering the claim so you might as well just hand him a pair of dowsing rods.
Click to expand...

And a Ouija board, and some Tarot cards, and some crystal balls.

Michel's claim now has become that everyone receives the correct answer, but if you report a different answer, you are therefore lying about the answer you really received.

Science, how does that work?
 
Dan O. said:
If you want to test his claim you need to listen to preciesly what his claim is. You cannot test your interpretation of his claim and pretend that has any relevance.

His claim requires an evaluation to the receiver's credibility. If you strip that out you are altering the claim so you might as well just hand him a pair of dowsing rods.
Click to expand...

So? He can test the credibility of an "I don't know" answer.
 
Dan O. said:
It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters that I am willing to let his claim be tested.
Click to expand...

You are confusing "testing the claim" and "accepting the protocol". I don't see anyone here trying to stop the claim from being tested.
 
Dan O. said:
Point to the valid test and where I was unwilling to allow it.
Click to expand...

It's only six posts back where you claimed it was quite legitimate for Michel to reject results he didn't like. This post. So sure, I can chop up some coathangers and throw science out the window and make up whatever I like. This seems to be your preferred scientific method.

Would you like more quotes? Because you posted 'em.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom