Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[dafydd]

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.

The test was bollocks, that is the most scientific thing that can be said about it. How can a test to discover if telepathy works be based on the premise that telepathy works? If you think that is science then good luck to you.

 

[kid meatball]

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.

It's not my fault that the protocol that you negotiated sucks.

CR is not a flaw, but the protocol we agreed to sucks. Which is it, a scientific credibility rating or a poor protocol?

 

[Dan O.]

CR is not a flaw, but the protocol we agreed to sucks. Which is it, a scientific credibility rating or a poor protocol?

Why is it that I have to keep repeating what I say? Is this the land Fiona speaks of where nothing is heard until you've said it three times?

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.

The protocol didn't even have goal posts. That was the problem. Are you going to work to fix it or just argue.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Why is it that I have to keep repeating what I say? Is this the land Fiona speaks of where nothing is heard until you've said it three times?

​

Send it telepathically .

 

[kid meatball]

Why is it that I have to keep repeating what I say? Is this the land Fiona speaks of where nothing is heard until you've said it three times?

​

We need you to clarify in the event you contradict yourself. Are you here to fix the broken protocol or just argue?

 

[Akhenaten]

The credibility ratings are your own fantasy and nothing to do with science.

Exactly this.

The whole ridiculous 'credibility rating' thingy is the single biggest thing wrong with this silly test and needs to be thrown out in its entirety.

Having done this, there would be no requirement for people to post anything at all in the thread for Michel to 'interpret'. Numbers can be sent to the trusted assistant in any old format and posted as a simple name/number list after a pre-arranged number of submissions have been received.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you want to test his claim you need to listen to preciesly what his claim is.

His claim is that everyone gets the right answer but some people (and only he can tell which ones by using a 'system' known only to himself) will lie about it.

You cannot test your interpretation of his claim and pretend that has any relevance.

His claim, as it stands, is untestable.

Attempting to put the claim in a form which makes it testable is not a pretence, it's an essential part of the process.

His claim requires an evaluation to the receiver's credibility.

From what we've seen so far it requires an extremely subjective evaluation which may, at Michel's whim, be carried out post-hoc in order to obtain his desired result.

This is quite clearly not a testable claim.

If you strip that out you are altering the claim so you might as well just hand him a pair of dowsing rods.

Yes. Or at least, the results will be about the same.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's not my fault that the protocol that you negotiated sucks.

It certainly looks as though it will be if this farce ever gets as far as another test.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why is it that I have to keep repeating what I say? Is this the land Fiona speaks of where nothing is heard until you've said it three times?

No, it's the land where no matter how many times you say something that's complete bollocks it will never become true.

 

[fromdownunder]

His claim is that everyone gets the right answer but some people (and only he can tell which ones by using a 'system' known only to himself) will lie about it.

The bolded part pretty much says all that needs to be said.

Norm

 

[fromdownunder]

Why is it that I have to keep repeating what I say? Is this the land Fiona speaks of where nothing is heard until you've said it three times?

Why is it that I posted an easy to do test, which would take less than an hour, only involve one of Michel's trusted friends with maybe two witnesses, ( and not internet "liars"), only use his beloved numbers 1 - 4, and he did not even bother to respond with either "that's worth trying", or "it won't work because..."

I will leave the answer for the student. No I won't. He knows he will fail a simple test that could be done tonight.

Norm

 

[Dan O.]

His claim is that everyone gets the right answer but some people (and only he can tell which ones by using a 'system' known only to himself) will lie about it.

The JREF MDC doesn't ask a claimant how they do what they claim to be able to do. They only ask that it be demonstrated in controled conditions.

His claim, as it stands, is untestable.

And what exactly makes it untestable (besides of course what I said).

Attempting to put the claim in a form which makes it testable is not a pretence, it's an essential part of the process.

You can point out the problems. You can offer suggestions. You can even try to better understand the claim in order to make more apropriate suggestions. But you cannot rewrite the protocol because it is not your claim.

From what we've seen so far it requires an extremely subjective evaluation which may, at Michel's whim, be carried out post-hoc in order to obtain his desired result.

The subjective evaluation is not an issue. Post-hoc changes are completely forbidden. In fact, if you browse through actual tests conducted by the JREF MDC you will see that the claimant doesn't even get feedback about the result of any trial until the test is over. The JREF MDC will even take one additional step after the test is over but before the results are revealed and that is to ask the claimant to make one more subjective evaluation as to how well they think they performed.

 

[Akhenaten]

His claim is that everyone gets the right answer but some people (and only he can tell which ones by using a 'system' known only to himself) will lie about it.

The JREF MDC doesn't ask a claimant how they do what they claim to be able to do. They only ask that it be demonstrated in controled conditions.

Bully for the JREF MDC. This is the GS&P sub-forum and we can ask what we like, thank you very much.

His claim, as it stands, is untestable.

And what exactly makes it untestable (besides of course what I said).

A number of things, chief of which is probably that it's so far been so vaguely stated that nobody even knows exactly what it is.

Attempting to put the claim in a form which makes it testable is not a pretence, it's an essential part of the process.

You can point out the problems. You can offer suggestions. You can even try to better understand the claim in order to make more apropriate suggestions.

That's exactly what people here have been doing.

But you cannot rewrite the protocol because it is not your claim.

So far, there's nothing to rewrite. A large part of the protocol (if it could even be called that) so far has been nothing more than what Michel makes up as he goes.

From what we've seen so far it requires an extremely subjective evaluation which may, at Michel's whim, be carried out post-hoc in order to obtain his desired result.

The subjective evaluation is not an issue.

Quite obviously it is.

Post-hoc changes are completely forbidden.

Perhaps you ought to be trying to convince Michel of this. I'm already well aware of it.

In fact, if you browse through actual tests conducted by the JREF MDC you will see that the claimant doesn't even get feedback about the result of any trial until the test is over. The JREF MDC will even take one additional step after the test is over but before the results are revealed and that is to ask the claimant to make one more subjective evaluation as to how well they think they performed.

You do realize that this is GS&P, don't you?

And that Michel presented his claim here for us to test?

If you want to help Michel with an MDC protocol then go right ahead, but this isn't the thread in which to do so.

 

[Dan O.]

You do realize that this is GS&P, don't you?

No, i never looked at the section until you mentioned it. Does the section make a difference in how one should treat a fellow forum member?

 

[Akhenaten]

No, i never looked at the section until you mentioned it. Does the section make a difference in how one should treat a fellow forum member?

Yes.

 

[xtifr]

Dan O.: I think the biggest thing you're missing is that no protocol was ever negotiated! Michel came along and said, "ok, we're going to do such-and-such." Numerous people objected, but he insisted, so we went along with it, purely in the hopes that he would recognize the flaws in his credibility rating, which was pretty much the only thing this test could accomplish, as "designed" (using that term loosely).

This was not any sort of formal test of anything. Anyone who thought any element of this was anything other than a joke was not paying attention, or was incapable of understanding what was going on.

The MDC would never allow a unilateral declaration of all details by the applicant. Most particularly, the MDC would never allow the applicant to arbitrarily throw out answers based on unspecified criteria. The forum allows all this, even though we all know it renders the test meaningless. But because we allow it, we also reserve the right to be snarky afterwards.

 

[dafydd]

Why is it that I have to keep repeating what I say? Is this the land Fiona speaks of where nothing is heard until you've said it three times?

​

Michael has told us more than three times that he is telepathic and we don't believe that either.

 

[abaddon]

Why is it that I have to keep repeating what I say?

You ask this of everyone in this thread, yet decline to ask it of yourself. Why is that?

Is this the land Fiona speaks of where nothing is heard until you've said it three times?

​

No. It is reality land, where what you type is expected to have some relation to reality no matter how slight. Who on earth is Fiona?

 

[dafydd]

You ask this of everyone in this thread, yet decline to ask it of yourself. Why is that?
No. It is reality land, where what you type is expected to have some relation to reality no matter how slight. Who on earth is Fiona?

Perhaps he thinks that the Bellman's name was Fiona.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O.: I think the biggest thing you're missing is that no protocol was ever negotiated! Michel came along and said, "ok, we're going to do such-and-such." Numerous people objected, but he insisted, so we went along with it, purely in the hopes that he would recognize the flaws in his credibility rating, which was pretty much the only thing this test could accomplish, as "designed" (using that term loosely).

You cannot pin this all on Michel.

This was not any sort of formal test of anything. Anyone who thought any element of this was anything other than a joke was not paying attention, or was incapable of understanding what was going on.

Then why do you go on about it as if it changed the world?

The MDC would never allow a unilateral declaration of all details by the applicant. Most particularly, the MDC would never allow the applicant to arbitrarily throw out answers based on unspecified criteria. The forum allows all this, even though we all know it renders the test meaningless. But because we allow it, we also reserve the right to be snarky afterwards.

Do you speak for the MDC? The protocol design is entirely up to the applicant. The JREF MDC would only reject the protocol where it isn't rigorous enough to rule out natural explanations. There is no scientific basis to not allow an applicant to rule out trials that don't meet the applicant's requirements (even if those requirements are only known to the applicant). The JREF MDC does impose a requirement that the test is practical and therefore must have a limited duration. I have seen this discussed in the protocol negotiations.