Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
Is that what passes for logic around here? You are asserting a causal relation with no supporting basis.
Click to expand...
If Michel's belief is that everyone hears his thoughts then, if he were correct, everyone hears his thoughts. What, in that case, would be the point of trying to claim that people don't?

Dan O. said:
It's been answered in this thread. That you are incapable of processing the information that is presented is not my problem.
Click to expand...
Well, with a helpful clue like that I was able to read back through the entire thread and discover that about a month ago you wrote:

Dan O. said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now, I'm going to guess that's what you're referring to as the moment when I should have inferred that you cannot in fact hear Michel's thoughts. And it's nice to see we agree that Michel does appear to imply that everyone hears his thoughts but they won't admit it.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
If Michel's belief is that everyone hears his thoughts then, if he were correct, everyone hears his thoughts. What, in that case, would be the point of trying to claim that people don't?


Well, with a helpful clue like that I was able to read back through the entire thread and discover that about a month ago you wrote:



Now, I'm going to guess that's what you're referring to as the moment when I should have inferred that you cannot in fact hear Michel's thoughts. And it's nice to see we agree that Michel does appear to imply that everyone hears his thoughts but they won't admit it.
Click to expand...

I still want to know if Dan O. hears Michel's thoughts. Dan O. is avoiding that.

Is he hearing them and lying about it?

Is he not hearing them and lying about it?
 
Dan O. said:
I should note all the posters here that simply suck at math. I posted a simple math problem up thread to see if there was even one other poster that was capable of doing the statistical analysis for the protocol of the OP. There were simply no takers. The only attempt at analysis in this thread came from Michel who correctly noted that of the 6 proper responses to the test, 3 were given a 0 CR (Michel saying the they did not hear the answer and are just guessing). The other three were given a negative CR (Michel saying that they did hear the answer but were lying consciously or unconsciously). Michel correctly assessed that 2 out of those three were lying. Hitting 66% on the first try scared the hell out of the so called skeptics here and they immediately took to attacking the CR of the protocol in the OP rather than accept that the OP was demonstrating an ability that they don't understand.
Click to expand...

Actuslly, that's not true (and I'm a little embarrassed I didn't double-check earlier). Of the seven participants, two (Ladewig and Femke) guessed correctly. Ladewig was given a CR of -5. Of the three that got a CR of 0, only Femke guessed correctly. See the results here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9597953&postcount=129

The people with a CR of 0 were: Hokulele, who guessed 1, Femke, who guessed 2, and gabeygoat, who guessed 4. That's 33%, which is about what you'd expect, given people's biases against choosing numbers at the extremes of a range when asked.

Michel later--after the answers were revealed, which was a violation of the protocol--decided that Ladewig deserved a higher CR than he had originally assigned, and that gabeygoat deserved a lower one.

Your notion that we somehow decided this was all wrong after the fact is utter nonsense. Many had already explained why they would not participate in such a flawed test even before we had any reveal: the protocol was unacceptably flawed from the very beginning. But the only person who changed his or her tune after the reveal was Michel.
 
xtifr said:
Your notion that we somehow decided this was all wrong after the fact is utter nonsense. Many had already explained why they would not participate in such a flawed test even before we had any reveal: the protocol was unacceptably flawed from the very beginning. But the only person who changed his or her tune after the reveal was Michel.
Click to expand...


Would you care to take that discussion to the science and math forum where you will be properly embarrassed in front of many more posters that really do know what they are talking about? Maybe you should review the posts up to #127 in this thread. Only Emily Cat came close to suggesting there was a valid criticism for the test and that was just dealing with the small sample size which statistical analysis would catch in the OP's test as it stands.
 
abaddon said:
Your premise is entirely predicated on the validity of Michel's credibility rating, a rating which is demonstrably shown to be based on the answers that Michel likes. Fail.
Click to expand...


Read post 127 again and then demonstrate your claim.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Now, I'm going to guess that's what you're referring to as the moment when I should have inferred that you cannot in fact hear Michel's thoughts. And it's nice to see we agree that Michel does appear to imply that everyone hears his thoughts but they won't admit it.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Read post 584.
 
Dan O. said:
Would you care to take that discussion to the science and math forum where you will be properly embarrassed in front of many more posters that really do know what they are talking about?
Click to expand...


There are at least a couple of wrong assumptions in the above. The first is that people in another sub-forum would be more conversant with the contents of this thread than those who have actually been following it and the second is that xtifr has anything at all to be embarrassed about by pointing out the mistaken beliefs on which you're basing your defense of the indefensible.
 
Akhenaten said:
There are at least a couple of wrong assumptions in the above. The first is that people in another sub-forum would be more conversant with the contents of this thread than those who have actually been following it and the second is that xtifr has anything at all to be embarrassed about by pointing out the mistaken beliefs on which you're basing your defense of the indefensible.
Click to expand...


No. People in another forum would know about math and science.
 
What happens if many telepathic people are broadcasting at once. How do you then make sense of either your own thoughts or their thoughts...or whose thoughts they even belong to?
 
Iamme said:
What happens if many telepathic people are broadcasting at once. How do you then make sense of either your own thoughts or their thoughts...or whose thoughts they even belong to?
Click to expand...


TunedHead.jpg
 
Akhenaten said:
Neither of which have anything to do with Michel's claim(s).
Click to expand...


The validity of the test protocol has nothing to do with the claim that is being tested. Or are you of the opinion that the claim must be proven before it can be tested?
 
Dan O. said:
I should note all the posters here that simply suck at math. I posted a simple math problem up thread to see if there was even one other poster that was capable of doing the statistical analysis for the protocol of the OP. There were simply no takers. The only attempt at analysis in this thread came from Michel who correctly noted that of the 6 proper responses to the test, 3 were given a 0 CR (Michel saying the they did not hear the answer and are just guessing). The other three were given a negative CR (Michel saying that they did hear the answer but were lying consciously or unconsciously). Michel correctly assessed that 2 out of those three were lying. Hitting 66% on the first try scared the hell out of the so called skeptics here and they immediately took to attacking the CR of the protocol in the OP rather than accept that the OP was demonstrating an ability that they don't understand.
Click to expand...

xtifr said:
Actuslly, that's not true (and I'm a little embarrassed I didn't double-check earlier). Of the seven participants, two (Ladewig and Femke) guessed correctly. Ladewig was given a CR of -5. Of the three that got a CR of 0, only Femke guessed correctly. See the results here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9597953&postcount=129

The people with a CR of 0 were: Hokulele, who guessed 1, Femke, who guessed 2, and gabeygoat, who guessed 4. That's 33%, which is about what you'd expect, given people's biases against choosing numbers at the extremes of a range when asked.

Michel later--after the answers were revealed, which was a violation of the protocol--decided that Ladewig deserved a higher CR than he had originally assigned, and that gabeygoat deserved a lower one.

Your notion that we somehow decided this was all wrong after the fact is utter nonsense. Many had already explained why they would not participate in such a flawed test even before we had any reveal: the protocol was unacceptably flawed from the very beginning. But the only person who changed his or her tune after the reveal was Michel.
Click to expand...

Dan O. said:
Would you care to take that discussion to the science and math forum where you will be properly embarrassed in front of many more posters that really do know what they are talking about? Maybe you should review the posts up to #127 in this thread. Only Emily Cat came close to suggesting there was a valid criticism for the test and that was just dealing with the small sample size which statistical analysis would catch in the OP's test as it stands.
Click to expand...

Akhenaten said:
There are at least a couple of wrong assumptions in the above. The first is that people in another sub-forum would be more conversant with the contents of this thread than those who have actually been following it and the second is that xtifr has anything at all to be embarrassed about by pointing out the mistaken beliefs on which you're basing your defense of the indefensible.
Click to expand...

Dan O. said:
No. People in another forum would know about math and science.
Click to expand...

tsig said:
Please link to that other forum.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Please try to follow the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom