Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

[TheSapient]

I believe that sending a different answer to the assistant goes again the spirit of this test, which is to assess credibilities of the answers in a blind way, i.e. without knowing the number. Let me take an example: you go to a furniture store, and you choose and buy over there a piece of furniture that you like a lot. You also ask for the furniture to be delivered to your house, but, when you receive the furniture a week later, you find out it's not the one you ordered. What would be your reaction?
The answers by stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat are still valid, however (see for example post #297, that you quote). But they didn't do what I recommended.

Michel: Sorry salesperson! I said it might be useful to send me an email with the invoice. You didn't. This means your bill, while credible and valid doesn't count. I get free furniture!

 

[AdMan]

I get you don't want to answer this, but I urge you to think about it. Why is having magical powers so important to you that openly manipulate test results?

It's related to the fact that he wants the voices he is apparently receiving himself to be from actual independent entities.

I understand that desire, but I still strongly urge Michel to discuss these voices he is hearing with a medical professional. At the very least, he should get that point of view so that he can consider it.

 

[dafydd]

And Pixel42 quoted from that very post in the post from that thread which I linked to. Other posters mentioned your posts on yahoo where you made essentially the same disclosures, 3 years ago.

Since I started following this discussion quite late, I was a bit taken by the disclosure. But then I did some research. The issue does still concern me but I don't see it as critical. I'd much rather get back to discussing the scientific investigation of presumed paranormal events. That's what this section of the forum is all about.

You are calling Michael's parody of a test scientific?

 

[dafydd]

I believe that sending a different answer to the assistant goes again the spirit of this test, which is to assess credibilities of the answers in a blind way, i.e. without knowing the number. Let me take an example: you go to a furniture store, and you choose and buy over there a piece of furniture that you like a lot. You also ask for the furniture to be delivered to your house, but, when you receive the furniture a week later, you find out it's not the one you ordered. What would be your reaction?
The answers by stanfr, Kid Eager and gabeygoat are still valid, however (see for example post #297, that you quote). But they didn't do what I recommended.

When you go to a furniture store you do not guess which item that you want to buy.

 

[dafydd]

You are quite right. So many ot the posters are all thumbs when it comes to this stuff. By that I mean that they can repeat the rule of thumb but beyond that they don't really understand.

Are you being serious?

 

[Pixel42]

No, the correct answer rate for people who abided by the recommended protocol is 2/6. The fact that you retroactively re-judged the credibility of answers after having the numbers revealed was itself a violation of the protocol, and can be ignored, as it rendered the entire test meaningless.

If a test protocol is violated a good experimenter discards the results and starts again. No-one with the slightest understanding of the scientific method tries to retrospectively fix a minor protocol violation by committing another protocol violation which is ten times worse.

 

[AdMan]

Are you being serious?

No, he isn't.

 

[dafydd]

Dan, broadcast a number between one and ten, I will try to recieve it and post the answer here. You decide if I recieved it, got it wrong or lying. How are you going to do that?

 

[cullennz]

37

 

[xtifr]

If a test protocol is violated a good experimenter discards the results and starts again. No-one with the slightest understanding of the scientific method tries to retrospectively fix a minor protocol violation by committing another protocol violation which is ten times worse.

That too. I can't claim this whole thing is descending into farce, because that's more or less where it started. It's rapidly reaching the point, though, where farce would be an improvement.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan, broadcast a number between one and ten, I will try to recieve it and post the answer here. You decide if I recieved it, got it wrong or lying. How are you going to do that?

I said before, the JREF doesn't ask how an applicant performs their claim. It is only necessary to demonstrate the claim under controled conditions.

To answer your question though, I suggest that you review what Michel has already written.

 

[Dan O.]

If a test protocol is violated a good experimenter discards the results and starts again. No-one with the slightest understanding of the scientific method tries to retrospectively fix a minor protocol violation by committing another protocol violation which is ten times worse.

So is your suggestion to fix the protocol and redo the experiment? Or do you as a scientist say that in the event of a minor protocol violation you should revert to your bias and end testing by casting doubts about the experimenter?

 

[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.

I've been scouring this thread to find any serious post of your own. We're you not aware by this point that the PhD is verified? Are you incapable of doing your own homework?

 

[dafydd]

I said before, the JREF doesn't ask how an applicant performs their claim. It is only necessary to demonstrate the claim under controled conditions.

To answer your question though, I suggest that you review what Michel has already written.

I have read all of his posts and noticed his method of ignoring wrong answers. He is not an applicant. Posting nonsense in a thread is not applying for the MDC.

 

[dafydd]

So is your suggestion to fix the protocol and redo the experiment? Or do you as a scientist say that in the event of a minor protocol violation you should revert to your bias and end testing by casting doubts about the experimenter?

No, he should contact a local skeptic's group and do a real test and then we'll take it from there.

 

[dafydd]

I've been scouring this thread to find any serious post of your own. We're you not aware by this point that the PhD is verified? Are you incapable of doing your own homework?

How do you know that he is the person named on the diploma? Telepathy? He doesn't come across as being a scientist. There are not many scientists who are completely unaware of the scientific method. A child could spot the flaws in his 'test'. Are you trolling for amusement?

 

[Dan O.]

How do you know that he is the person named on the diploma?

From what I can find, identity theft is a crime in Belgium. If you have evidence of this you should report it. To cast aspersions against another poster here is uncivil and a violation of the JREF Membership Agreement.

 

[dafydd]

From what I can find, identity theft is a crime in Belgium. If you have evidence of this you should report it. To cast aspersions against another poster here is uncivil and a violation of the JREF Membership Agreement.

No, it is not a personal attack or insult. It's up to me whether I believe that he is a scientist or not. Do you believe everything that you read on the net? If he is a scientist then he is not acting like one, hence my suspicions. The test is now irrelevant, I am worried about him and the voices in his head. We don't know if that is true either, but if it is then the test is the least of his worries. Posting somebody elses's diploma is not identity theft. And he's not in Belgium.

 

[dafydd]

It can now be revealed. I am a professor of physics at Antwerp University. Who will dare to disbelieve me and break the MA?

 

[Akhenaten]

I've been scouring this thread to find any serious post of your own. We're you not aware by this point that the PhD is verified? Are you incapable of doing your own homework?

Verified.