This is not a good way to test. Evaluating results based upon perceived patterns is inherently skewed. You don't want
clustering illusion to interfere with the evaluation.
Hey, listen, if someone says they can make a coin toss come out heads every time and he gets the following in a series of 48 tosses:
HHHHHHHHHHT
HTT
HHT
HHT
HHHHHT
HT
HTT
HT
HHHHHTT
HHHHHT
HH
I'm impressed. Don't know about you.
This type of pattern falls way outside the situation covered by the clustering illusion (I'll elaborate if you wish).
No. This particular result is equally likely to HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. It is also equally likely to
THTTHTHTTTHTHHTTHHHHTHTHHHHHTTHTHTTTTHHHTHTTTHTT or any other particular result. It is a fallacy to assume that a result is less likely to occur just because it is highly patterned.
We're talking apples and oranges. What I'm impying with my post, without outright saying it, is that a result with a recognisable pattern is far less likely than a result without a recognisable pattern. Simply because there are far less results with a recognisable pattern than without.
For example a result with a highly recognisable pattern such as:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
is far less likely than a result without a recognisable pattern such as:
HHTHTTHHTTHTHTTHHHTHTTTHHTHTHHTHTHHTHTTTTH
In fact there are only two of them the other being:
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Whereas there are millions without a recognisable pattern.
The statistical result of 75% heads and 25% tails is less likely to occur than 50% heads and 50% tails, but a pattern having 75% heads is in fact equally likely to any other pattern.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
If JM produces a recognisable pattern with lots of heads when he is going for heads, the result is immediately obvious as having been unlikely to have been produced by mere chance. There is a run of 10 heads and three runs of 5 heads in his series of 48 tosses (as I said, outside the situation covered by the clustering illusion). If JM goes with heads or tails in a random manner or according to what feels right at the time, he will produce a random pattern every time he does a run of coin tosses. Similar to what anyone without any power produces.
Perhaps I'm not explaining it well.
Also, there is another problem with making Jim_Mich only force heads. If the underlying mechanism for the alleged phenomenon (which has not been shown yet) is that Jim actually predicts the outcome of an external event and merely misinterprets that as being able to force it, your test would give a negative result even if a genuine paranormal phenomenon was taking place.
I see your point.
But the idea of the challenge is to test JM on what he says he can do. Randi is at pains to say that he is not interested in
explanations of how contestants can do what they say they can do. All he is interested in is the contestant telling him clearly what he can do - and then do it. JM says he can force things to happen. He says he can force a coin to land the way he wants. Let him show that he can do it. Who knows what the mechanism is. Who cares. Why even bother about mechanism when we have yet to prove it can even be done.
JM now says he cannot make the coin land all heads. Who knows why he can't. Who cares. He says he cannot do it. End of story. Except that we are homing in on what exactly it is that he
can do.
JM now says he cannot consistently make it four heads alternating with four tails. Again who knows and who cares. He can't do it. So now we have it narrowed down a little further.
(see later)
