Book Test: Max & Any Others Interested

Interesting Ian said:


No, limiting the targets is a bad idea in my opinion.
Click to expand...

And another thing.

You said earlier that "And also should be a fiction book." so aren't you already limiting the targets?
 
buki said:
Yes, it's fun for Clancie until her pet beliefs are threatened. Then seriousness abounds. Calls for evidence are heard throughout the forums.

Hush, you can hear them now...

you have no proof...show me where I said that...I have you on ignooooooorrre...
Click to expand...

From my experience with skeptics this is what I was concerned would happen. They are absolutely certain no anomalous cognition exists, but should it exist it must have certain characteristics and be precisely quantifiable etc. They also don't like to see this as being a fun game because, perhaps subconsciously, they might be expectations on their part that should they treat it as fun it just might work. No doubt they also fail to appreciate that the failure of such an experiment provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever against AC. Indeed it would still not even if one adopted my suggestions.
 
Garrette said:
So this is basically "let's guess what book Garrette has on top of his locker", right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not really.
Click to expand...

But Buki realises that one can have a priori knowledge that anomalous mental phenomena cannot possibly exist i.e they are logically impossible. Or perhaps he is content in simply asserting that such alleged phenomena would be inconsistent with everything we know about science :rolleyes:

You cannot expect a person like Buki to take this experiment seriously. He already "knows" the answer. Some people are just too emotionally committed to a particular interpretation of reality to even countenance any other.
 
buki said:
Not really. It's a test (albeit loose and unscientific) to demonstrate validity or lack of validity to the claim of anomalous cognition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then how can it be a test of anything?

I don't quite get what you are trying to resolve here, sorry.
Click to expand...

There you go! What did I just say?? Some people are just too intellectually deficient to understand anything.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, buki, I do have a sense of humor, and I think you're just trying to be silly in your last post. But I have my official Cracker Jack Scientist hat on at the moment and so must treat all responses with equal objectivity. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I was being silly. This whole experiment is silly.

I'm probably just tired and don't get the whole reasoning behind this. What the hell, have fun.
Click to expand...

{shakes head sadly}
 
Darat said:


Why?

Consider how ESP etc. is often described e.g. as a fleeting, almost intuitive process, that it is not like "seeing" with your eyes and so on. There are millions of possible books so having some of these flashes may not help you pin it down. (And couldn’t your 'subconscious' (not that I think we have one ;) ) almost filter out some legitimate titles because they "sounded strange"?

But give people a choice out of say ten books and that lets them use their feelings to work out which was the book they thought they had received information about.

"Yes - that's the one, that's why I said there was a priest and Lord Dunsey, my ESP was trying to tell me that it was book about infertile aristocrats!"
Click to expand...

No harm in doing it both ways.
 
Interesting Ian said:


I was thinking more of anecdotes and my personal experiences. They vastly swamp the research. Even with research I believe that it strongly suggests that psi is facilitated along the lines I have delineated. It seems to me a tad strange you arguing with me what the most effective way is when you don't even believe in it! :eek:
Click to expand...
LOL...that is a huge difference between us, Ian...my line of work makes me familiar with our cognitive biases, and so I am much more apt to trust a body of research than my own experience on this. (I think I have told you in other threads of the time I was ready to swear in court that a particular person had mugged me, when it became obvious minutes later that it was another person entirely! I know for a fact that my perceptions are subject to various biases...)

As for arguing with you...I do teach about this stuff, Ian, I am familiar with the literature on both sides. I submit that you and I both approach the literature with a bias. I know I am aware of mine, and I work to see both sides. I don't pretend to know whether this is the same for you. Anyway...I was merely pointing out that the published literature in psi has not reached a consensus on "effort" (either agreeing or disagreeing with you). Your personal experience suggests otherwise, but to be fair, N=1 for this observation. The experience of one person should not be weighted more heavily than that of any other...or that of decades of research.

With the subconscious expectatations of failing I was simply attempting a very plausible hypothesis to account for the propensity for skeptics to sometimes psi miss.
Click to expand...
A plausible, but unfalsifiable, hypothesis, Ian. "Subconscious expectations" cannot be measured, even in principle! Your plausible hypothesis is indistinguishable from an excuse! I know that does not make it false...my point is that nothing can disprove it! (Unless I am missing something...how would you falsify the claim that subconscious expectations have an effect on anomalous cognition?
 
Mercutio said:


As for arguing with you...I do teach about this stuff, Ian, I am familiar with the literature on both sides. I submit that you and I both approach the literature with a bias. I know I am aware of mine, and I work to see both sides. I don't pretend to know whether this is the same for you. Anyway...I was merely pointing out that the published literature in psi has not reached a consensus on "effort" (either agreeing or disagreeing with you).
Click to expand...


It may not have done. None of this detracts from what I have already said one iota.

Your personal experience suggests otherwise, but to be fair, N=1 for this observation.
Click to expand...

N=1 conveys no meaning to me.

The experience of one person should not be weighted more heavily than that of any other...or that of decades of research.
A plausible, but unfalsifiable, hypothesis, Ian.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant whether it is unfalsifiable or not. This does not somehow magically make it less likely to be true. You misuse the concept of falsifiability. It's something which physicists are obsessed with. It doesn't have the same applicability here.

"Subconscious expectations" cannot be measured,
Click to expand...

No, neither can consciousness be measured because it is not physical. Again I stress this is wholly irrelevant.

even in principle!
Click to expand...

I know, neither can consciousness. So what?

Your plausible hypothesis is indistinguishable from an excuse!
Click to expand...

Then you haven't understood it.

I know that does not make it false...my point is that nothing can disprove it! (Unless I am missing something...how would you falsify the claim that subconscious expectations have an effect on anomalous cognition?
Click to expand...

By providing a more plausible hypothesis for why skeptics psi miss.
 
Garrette,

You have a book on the locker, right? It's probably too late for a PM, so I'm going to just guess it's Gauld's, "Mediumship and Survival".
 
Interesting Ian said:

N=1 conveys no meaning to me.
Click to expand...
Sample size = 1. It is the report of one person, not the report of several (depending on the study) people under controlled conditions. Even if we take the conditions as assumed to be equal, the central limit theorem tells us that your small sample size is more subject to sampling error.


It's irrelevant whether it is unfalsifiable or not. This does not somehow magically make it less likely to be true. You misuse the concept of falsifiability. It's something which physicists are obsessed with. It doesn't have the same applicability here.
Click to expand...
I think I admitted that it does not make it untrue. The problem is simply that it is impossible to say whether or not it is true. This makes it useless in an empirical investigation, which this is.


By providing a more plausible hypothesis for why skeptics psi miss.
Click to expand...
Well...um, no. Now it is you who misuse the concept of falsifiability. A more plausible hypothesis is completely irrelevant in falsifying your current hypothesis. We do not need to know what does explain something to be able to see that something else does not explain it. What evidence would convince you that skeptics' subconscious expectations were not having an influence? I can think of no result that can overturn your hypothesis, since there is no way of measuring the subconscious expectations in the first place. I mean, certainly...if you could divide up the skeptics with and without subconscious expectations of failure, and there was no difference, that would perhaps do...but since we cannot do that...what do you suggest?
 
Garrette,

I suggest that you simply copy one of these

!@#$%^&*()

on an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper and put it on your locker.

There are problems with this but it is clear and easy (number/symbol associations and order effects are not controlled for)

I suggest doing it three times.
 
I don't want to tread on anyone's toes here, but I have set up something which was suggested. Garette, how does this sound?

I have chosen 15 books. I own them all, so even if you know me and are familiar with my bookshelf you will not be able to eliminate any of the titles.

One of the books is on my desk. You must choose which one it is. The subject is irrelevant. No fishing will be entertained, just pick one of the books.

You can view the books at the following page:
http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php

The page has a script which randomises the order, so you should not take any meaning from its position in the list. Also listed are the ISBNs, so you can look up a synopsis if you get a sense of the book's subject.

I have written the book's identity and encrypted it using PGP. The result is a self-extracting file which you can download now and which you will be able to decrypt with the key I will publish on Sunday. No installation of PGP will be required on your part, but apparently the file will only be able to be decrypted by Windows systems. Download the file now at http://www.aouc84.dsl.pipex.com/secretbook.txt.sda.exe

PM me your book title only and I'll announce the results on Sunday.

(I don't want to clutter the board with loads of guesses for yet another RV test, but if you think this is an interesting way to go, send me a message.)
 
Since participation in my test has dwindled, probably for good reason. I'll go ahead and post the answer.

Clancie, I was wondering if anyone would guess one of those books we've discussed here, but it's not that one.

The actual book is:

"Ten Ever Lovin' Blue Eyed Years With Pogo"

which is a collection of strips (over ten years, natch) of the Pogo Comic Strip by Walt Kelly who is the greatest cartoonist ever to live bar none this is not debatable so don't even try.

---

I will now, just because my ego knows no bounds, begin another test in another thread along the ten book lines, even though Paj is doing something similar. (And, no, Paj, it doesn't bother me; no toes to worry about stepping on).

I'll ask for input on protocols before starting the test, though, but please put them in the new thread.

Interesting side note. My list of books also included The Hobbit (though another edition with different cover art from the one Paj chose). I have now dropped it from mine.

Paj: Nicely varied list, btw. I tried to vary mine, too.
 
OK, to avoid confusion of the tests I'll continue use this thread on Sunday to post the results. A couple more points though:

Images are from Amazon, but the cover art is the same as the editions I have.

The selection was chosen randomly by simply loading the random display page and seeing which book appeared at a pre-chosen position. When this test is over, I will be choosing another book from the same set, and it could equally be the same book again.
 
Since some people have suggested that my test was not easy enough, I have made it so simple even I.I. could do it!

Just visit http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php , choose the book you feel is on my desk, enter your name and hit "submit".

How simple is that?
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Since some people have suggested that my test was not easy enough, I have made it so simple even I.I. could do it!

Just visit http://clarion.no-ip.org/books.php , choose the book you feel is on my desk, enter your name and hit "submit".

How simple is that?
Click to expand...

Nicely done.

(By the way I had a sense of deja vu since I have 10 of those books on the book shelves behind me - does that count for anything? ;) )
 
Results are in. See the table at http://clarion.no-ip.org/bookresults.htm

Only one person in 20 hit the correct book, and she happened to be an ex-girlfriend of mine. I am sure my wife will be worried about this obvious "link" which still exists between us!

Anyway, the test has reset with another randomly chosen book. Let's see if she can repeat the effect.

(The rest of you, join in!)
 
The winner of Round 3 was Lucianarchy, who correctly guessed that the book on my desk was Chocolat. A fluke or genuine ability? Only one way to find out!

Round 4 is now under way.
 
The winner of round 4 was Ersby, who correctly identified the Holland Rough Guide on my desk. So far, no one has managed to score twice, but it's still early days.

Round 5 is running now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom