Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheSapient said:
You are confusing "testing the claim" and "accepting the protocol". I don't see anyone here trying to stop the claim from being tested.
Click to expand...


I thought I was very clear when discussing what part of the protocol would not be acceptable by the JREF MDC. One poster understood the issue. I'm not sure if any others did.

Several posters here have been insistent on stripping the Credibility Rating from Michel's protocols, saying that it was unscientific, claiming that it would invalidate the results. I quite frankly don't think any of those posters have a clue about science.
 
abaddon said:
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.
Click to expand...


Post the quotes. They are more accurate than you misunderstandings. And try actually attacking my arguments.
 
Dan O. said:
I thought I was very clear when discussing what part of the protocol would not be acceptable by the JREF MDC. One poster understood the issue. I'm not sure if any others did.
Click to expand...
It was very clear. Michel altered the protocols after the test simply to get the results he desired.

Dan O. said:
Several posters here have been insistent on stripping the Credibility Rating from Michel's protocols, saying that it was unscientific, claiming that it would invalidate the results. I quite frankly don't think any of those posters have a clue about science.
Click to expand...

I give that statement a Credibility Rating of -100. Prove my credibility rating is incorrect. I refuse to identify the scale, and I refuse to identify its meaning, and I refuse to justify why I could only do it after you stated your opinion. Good luck with that.

ETA: Almost forgot, I reserve the right to change your credibility rating at any random point in the future at a whim, so you are going to have to be very convincing.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Several posters here have been insistent on stripping the Credibility Rating from Michel's protocols, saying that it was unscientific, claiming that it would invalidate the results. I quite frankly don't think any of those posters have a clue about science.
Click to expand...

Could you replicate his results of the credibility ratings based on his OP?
 
abaddon said:
It was very clear. Michel altered the protocols after the test simply to get the results he desired.
Click to expand...


Was the protocol accepted? If the protocol was accepted it is fixed and cannot be altered for that test. That Michel made some new claim after the test is a different issue. The purpose of these trials are to work out the bugs in the protocol and between tests the protocol should be adjusted to handle the issues that have come up. Even better is to identify the issues before they come up so as to avoid unnecessary testing.

I have never claimed that Michel has passed any test. The bulk of my posts other than responding to derails have centered on improving the protocol, pointing out flaws and pointing out that the CR itself is not a flaw.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
I thought I was very clear when discussing what part of the protocol would not be acceptable by the JREF MDC. One poster understood the issue. I'm not sure if any others did.

Several posters here have been insistent on stripping the Credibility Rating from Michel's protocols, saying that it was unscientific, claiming that it would invalidate the results. I quite frankly don't think any of those posters have a clue about science.
Click to expand...

Oh, the credibility ratings are quite unscientific. He has flat out admitted there is no protocol for them.
 
Dan O. said:
Was the protocol accepted? If the protocol was accepted it is fixed and cannot be altered for that test. That Michel made some new claim after the test is a different issue. The purpose of these trials are to work out the bugs in the protocol and between tests the protocol should be adjusted to handle the issues that have come up. Even better is to identify the issues before they come up so as to avoid unnecessary testing.

I have never claimed that Michel has passed any test. The bulk of my posts other than responding to derails have centered on improving the protocol, pointing out flaws and pointing out that the CR itself is not a flaw.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling you are simply behind where this conversation actually is. This is the second version of his test. The first was simply people trying to guess what number he had written down. The results were as expected for chance. He rejected those results by applying a "credibility rating" which was basically just him throwing out all the answers that were different than the one he chose.

This thread was about blinding his credibility ratings. The pre-credibility rated results where consistent with chance. As were the results after his credibility ratings. Then, when the results were revealed, he applied yet another new rule to get the results he wanted.
 
kid meatball said:
Could you replicate his results of the credibility ratings based on his OP?
Click to expand...


The OP gives the mechanics of how the test will be performed including the part about the CR. What it was missing was the details of the statistical analysis that would determine the criteria necessary for a test to be regarded as successful. I took that as simply an admission that nobody in this thread had the necessary statistics background to do such an analysis. It really should have been discussed before starting the test.
 
Dan O. said:
The OP gives the mechanics of how the test will be performed including the part about the CR. What it was missing was the details of the statistical analysis that would determine the criteria necessary for a test to be regarded as successful. I took that as simply an admission that nobody in this thread had the necessary statistics background to do such an analysis. It really should have been discussed before starting the test.
Click to expand...

could you replicate the results?
 
TheSapient said:
I get the feeling you are simply behind where this conversation actually is. This is the second version of his test. The first was simply people trying to guess what number he had written down. The results were as expected for chance. He rejected those results by applying a "credibility rating" which was basically just him throwing out all the answers that were different than the one he chose.

This thread was about blinding his credibility ratings. The pre-credibility rated results where consistent with chance. As were the results after his credibility ratings. Then, when the results were revealed, he applied yet another new rule to get the results he wanted.
Click to expand...


I had taken a vacation from this section of the forum since I had introduced blinding using the MD5 hash years ago. I read a few pages after the OP and a few pages near the end before jumping in with some minor observations. Did anyone even understand the Marcos reference?
 
Dan O. said:
Was the protocol accepted? If the protocol was accepted it is fixed and cannot be altered for that test.
Click to expand...
Yep. Yep it was. Then Michel moved the goalposts.


Dan O. said:
That Michel made some new claim after the test is a different issue.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what he did.

Dan O. said:
The purpose of these trials are to work out the bugs in the protocol and between tests the protocol should be adjusted to handle the issues that have come up. Even better is to identify the issues before they come up so as to avoid unnecessary testing.
Click to expand...
Which would be an eminently welcome way to proceed. But Michel will not accept that. And you are enabling him.

Dan O. said:
I have never claimed that Michel has passed any test. The bulk of my posts other than responding to derails have centered on improving the protocol, pointing out flaws and pointing out that the CR itself is not a flaw.
Click to expand...
And you are incorrect. You have consistently attempted to present Michel's test as in some way valid. You have attempted to present any criticism of Michel's "tests" as being criticised as some monolithic non-scientific fascism.

You know full well that this is nothing more than bending the results to get the result you want.
 
Dan O. said:
It's not my fault that the protocol that you negotiated sucks.
Click to expand...

But certainly it is your responsibility to read the relevant threads before criticizing. This thread is a test of his credibility system. The mechanics of the system are not really important to the test. What matters is that he assigned ratings without knowing what numbers the participants chose. The test demonstrated that when blinded to those results, his credibility system no longer selected for correct responses to his telepathy question.
 
TheSapient said:
But certainly it is your responsibility to read the relevant threads before criticizing. This thread is a test of his credibility system. The mechanics of the system are not really important to the test. What matters is that he assigned ratings without knowing what numbers the participants chose. The test demonstrated that when blinded to those results, his credibility system no longer selected for correct responses to his telepathy question.
Click to expand...

And this is where it falls apart. Michel's credibility system, if it may be so called, only works when Michel has the answers beforehand, and is thus rendered useless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom