Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
T'ai Chi said:
Yeah, but "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" sounds more impressive
Yeah, but "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" sounds more impressive
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Darat said:
Anomalous Cognition (AC) — A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. In this process some individuals are able to gain access to information from events outside the range of their senses by a currently not understood mechanism. Several synonyms for this phenomenon are in use: Remote Viewing (RV), Clairvoyance, and ESP.
Darat
And this definition doesn't set alarm bells ringing for you?
I don't understand what's wrong with the definition. Are you unhappy because you feel that no such AC exists? Or is there something about the definition itself you don't like?
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
BTW has Bill answered the list of questions yet? Has Claus?
Interesting Ian said:
I've no idea if "AC" exists - it may do and it may not do - so no problem there. And I don't have a problem with the definition either, after all they can define it to be whatever they want.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Darat said:
OK . . . so why are alarm bells ringing for you??
[Note to Bill: If you ever return to this thread, please don't get bogged down in the definition or existence/non-existence of AC. It has nothing to do with the -main- issue, namely, your inaccurate....biased.... useless....counting method. I can see you eagerly seizing on it, in lieu of leopards or radioactive decay. 
]
But, enough about what I think. Why not show that you -do- know how to answer a few direct questions after all? Or just clearly state that you can't or won't?
They're right here, all (except mine which you -have- made clear you will not address) are clearly listed for you now in one post. So....?
]But, enough about what I think. Why not show that you -do- know how to answer a few direct questions after all? Or just clearly state that you can't or won't?
They're right here, all (except mine which you -have- made clear you will not address) are clearly listed for you now in one post. So....
?Clancie said:But, enough about what I think. Why not show that you -do- know how to answer a few direct questions after all? Or just clearly state that you can't or won't?
They're right here, all (except mine which you -have- made clear you will not address) are clearly listed for you now in one post. So....
(Click on icon)
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Interesting Ian said:
So I guess the answer is no?
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Bill certainly hasn't.Interesting Ian said:
So I guess the answer is no?
Claus took a stab at them, but most of his responses were non-responsive to the questions asked, and he is either ignoring my follow up or he can't actually answer the questions.
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Thanz said:
Yes in my experience Claus just ducks questions all the time. Most regrettable. Oh well
michaellee
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 633
You want answers?
....................
Question #3 b
If someone asks you for "a piece of fruit, like an apple or a pear" are they asking you for one item or three items?
Question #3 cLikewise, when JE says "A J connection, like John or Joe" is he looking for one J connection, or is he looking for three J connections?
Question #4
You say that you can count bird parts as long as you don't claim to be counting whole birds. But that is exactly what you are doing. You are counting parts of a guess - "like john or joe" as whole guesses. That is the point that you don't address....
I would like you to explain (if you are able) either why you believe the bird analogy above is inappropriate, or, if appropriate, why we would count parts as whole birds.
....................
Answer 3b: ONE
Answer 3c: ONE connection sought, THREE guesses made
Answer #4 and Answer #3 explained:
If a shuffled,standard 52 card deck was placed before me, face down, and I claimed to be able to correctly identify the 10th card from the top(which is the Queen of Spades), and I bet you $10,000 I could identify it in 4 guesses or less, with your confirmation when a guess is correct or incorrect, what would qualify as each of the 4 guesses I made?
If I guessed: "I feel a Spade connection, like a Four or a Five", would this count as 1, 2 or 3 guesses?
Well, when you confirm the Spade connection portion of my statement, I would then have eliminated 39 cards and reduced the odds of my correctly guessing to 1 in 13. A non confirmation on the Four and Five further reduces the odds to 1 in 11 of me guessing correctly.
Similarly, If instead I guessed "I feel a Heart connection, like a Ten or a Queen", and you confirmed the Queen connection, but non-confirmed the Heart connection, the odds of me picking the card would drop to 1 in 3.
In these scenarios, my guess of "spades" and the guess of "hearts" are the equivalent of JE's guess of "a J connection"; and my guesses of 'Four or a Five' and 'Ten or a Queen' are the equivalent of JE's "John or Joe" guesses. The spade and heart guesses allow for a greater chance of a correct guess and a minor hit, while the 'Jack or a 5' and Ten or a Queen' guesses allows for the chance of a major hit.
Now in either scenario, how many more guesses do I get(remember, $10,000 is riding!). Of course, I have ONE guess remaining, as I used THREE guesses in each scenario.
In either case, "I feel a Spade connection, like a 4 or a 5", and "I feel a Heart connection, like a Ten or a Queen" constitutes 3 guesses while seeking one card, just as JE's "Like a J connection, John or Joe" constitutes 3 guesses while seeking one connection.
....................
Question #3 b
If someone asks you for "a piece of fruit, like an apple or a pear" are they asking you for one item or three items?
Question #3 cLikewise, when JE says "A J connection, like John or Joe" is he looking for one J connection, or is he looking for three J connections?
Question #4
You say that you can count bird parts as long as you don't claim to be counting whole birds. But that is exactly what you are doing. You are counting parts of a guess - "like john or joe" as whole guesses. That is the point that you don't address....
I would like you to explain (if you are able) either why you believe the bird analogy above is inappropriate, or, if appropriate, why we would count parts as whole birds.
....................
Answer 3b: ONE
Answer 3c: ONE connection sought, THREE guesses made
Answer #4 and Answer #3 explained:
If a shuffled,standard 52 card deck was placed before me, face down, and I claimed to be able to correctly identify the 10th card from the top(which is the Queen of Spades), and I bet you $10,000 I could identify it in 4 guesses or less, with your confirmation when a guess is correct or incorrect, what would qualify as each of the 4 guesses I made?
If I guessed: "I feel a Spade connection, like a Four or a Five", would this count as 1, 2 or 3 guesses?
Well, when you confirm the Spade connection portion of my statement, I would then have eliminated 39 cards and reduced the odds of my correctly guessing to 1 in 13. A non confirmation on the Four and Five further reduces the odds to 1 in 11 of me guessing correctly.
Similarly, If instead I guessed "I feel a Heart connection, like a Ten or a Queen", and you confirmed the Queen connection, but non-confirmed the Heart connection, the odds of me picking the card would drop to 1 in 3.
In these scenarios, my guess of "spades" and the guess of "hearts" are the equivalent of JE's guess of "a J connection"; and my guesses of 'Four or a Five' and 'Ten or a Queen' are the equivalent of JE's "John or Joe" guesses. The spade and heart guesses allow for a greater chance of a correct guess and a minor hit, while the 'Jack or a 5' and Ten or a Queen' guesses allows for the chance of a major hit.
Now in either scenario, how many more guesses do I get(remember, $10,000 is riding!). Of course, I have ONE guess remaining, as I used THREE guesses in each scenario.
In either case, "I feel a Spade connection, like a 4 or a 5", and "I feel a Heart connection, like a Ten or a Queen" constitutes 3 guesses while seeking one card, just as JE's "Like a J connection, John or Joe" constitutes 3 guesses while seeking one connection.
I must say that in my inexpert opinion, michaellee's playing card analogy is incisive. It has clarified it brilliantly for me and, I think, tips the scales decisively in favor of BillHoyt's and CFLarsen's arguments.
That being said, I don't think that Tai Chi, Thanz, or Clancie were being obtuse or misleading. Until michaellee's analogy, I had my doubts about the counting method, too.
jmo
That being said, I don't think that Tai Chi, Thanz, or Clancie were being obtuse or misleading. Until michaellee's analogy, I had my doubts about the counting method, too.
jmo
Garrette said:
Shouldn't at least T'ai Chi know better? I can understand why Thanz and Clancie would be wrong, since they have very little statistical knowledge (not that this prevents them from throwing statistical terms around), but T'ai Chi?
It's not the first time serious doubt about T'ai Chi's statstical credentials has been raised. This only strengthens it.
CFLarsen said:
Oh Claud, I do.
Why do you think Bill hasn't given a mathematical dmeonstration of the supposed independence of events??See above and below.
Also noted is the fact that YOU have yet to provide any mathematics at all. Typical armchair pseudoskeptic in action folks!
As if raising doubts is enough; no dude, you have to SHOW it.This from someone who says they've never been to college.
Odds are, you're wrong when it comes to statistical matters because you have less experience evaluating them.Look, we are not counting suits of cards and numbers, we are counting names. If one says:
'I'm seeing an older gentleman, a J name, a Joe, Joseph, Jimmy, John'
The probability of the second name being a J is 100% when the first name is a J. One can also see how "Joseph" is 100% dependent on the previous name being a "Joe".
No medium is going to say:
'I'm seeing an older gentleman, a J-name, a Joe, a Mike, a Steve'
If you look at the definition of statistical independence (which I already gave you Claus..) you'd need to have:
P(first name being a J-name)*(P(second name being a J-name) = P(first name being a J-name and second name being a J-name).
The proponents of Bill's analysis still have yet to show why one would expect this equation to hold, where critics of it have in fact shown that P(second name being a J-name) is 100% when the event 'first name is a J-name' occurs.
T'ai Chi,
The name is Claus. And even though I haven't a got college degree (I was captured by the Evil World of Computers instead), I can still spot a fake.
It will be interesting to see what michaellee has to say to your reply.
The name is Claus. And even though I haven't a got college degree (I was captured by the Evil World of Computers instead), I can still spot a fake.
It will be interesting to see what michaellee has to say to your reply.
Michaellee,
First, like Garrette, I commend you for your example. Unlike Bill, you have tried to address the issue and advance the discussion.
That said, I don't think your card example is at all analogous to the mediumship example. Here’s why....
For JE, this is comparable to a "deck of the deceased" (ersby, are you listening? ) with 6 suits..."above...to your side...below you...male/female".
So...You say..."Is it a spade?" with 1 in 4 chance of being right. He says "Is it a father figure?" (let's say he can stretch it, if needed, but usually if he says this, it is "father", which I think is -more- difficult than your suits. But I digress....)
Let's say that you both get a "Yes".
If JE says...."Male, older, father figure"...he's right with the "suit" as you were with Spades. He goes on to say, "Is it a 'J' name?" so let's (for the sake of argument) say 1 in 13 older male names would start with 'J'. And, in your card examples, You say "Is it a 4?" and one in 13 cards in spades would be a "4".
michaellee says: "Spade?" (1 in 4) "Yes."
JE says: "Older male, father figure?" (1 in 6) "Yes".
One difference is that you know there are spades in your deck. JE doesn’t know the man has a deceased father/father figure in his "deck". (But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that if he’s wrong, he can still make it work...grandfather...great grandfather...uncle...although if he had to fish that much most people like me would not count it a hit).
michaellee goes on to say, "4?" (1 in 13 chance)
JE says, "J” (Let’s call it a 1 in 13 chance).
If you're right, you've accomplished your task..."4 of spades is your card."
If JE's right, he's said, "father's name starts with 'J'"....Impressive or not? You decide.
Let's say he feels its better to get the exact name. If he waits for confirmation of "J", as you wait for spades, that's one thing. But sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't (i.e. not a card trick).
But, more to the point, is what happens if you're wrong and JE's wrong.
If you say, "Spade, like a 4 or 5" and get three "No's", you've significantly helped yourself figure out the card.
If JE says, "father...with a "J" name like "Joe"" and gets three "No's"....he's not a whole lot closer to getting a hit at all.
Or if he says "I feel a father figure" (yes), a "J" name for him (no) then he -still- hasn't significantly reduced his chances of getting the right person/right name to 1 in 3.
No, “J” is his equivalent, though his possibility for error is much greater than yours.
JE can be right on “J” but has no guarantee that he can –ever- get the correct “J” name, no matter how much he guesses.
And, unlike you, if he is wrong on “J”...he can’t be right on “Joe or John” either.
That’s where the analogy most breaks down, michaellee. Your first, second, and third guesses are still helping you narrow it down to the right card, whether they’re right or whether they’re wrong.
With JE, if he’s wrong on “J”, he can’t be right on Joe or John (guess #2 and #3) either. And, also unlike you, JE can’t be right on “Joe or John” and wrong on “J”. You can be right on “4 or 5” and wrong on “spades” and, either way, it helps you get the right answer. JE's "Joe/John" guesses just don't work that way because they are dependent on the "J" itself being correct.
First, like Garrette, I commend you for your example. Unlike Bill, you have tried to address the issue and advance the discussion.
That said, I don't think your card example is at all analogous to the mediumship example. Here’s why....
So, michaellee, if I apply your analogy to mediumship, let's say that JE is looking at a "deck" of, what?...100? 1000? 2000? 5000? 10000? possible names for people.
So...You have a 1 in 4 chance of being right with "Spade" because your deck has four suits.
For JE, this is comparable to a "deck of the deceased" (ersby, are you listening?
) with 6 suits..."above...to your side...below you...male/female".So...You say..."Is it a spade?" with 1 in 4 chance of being right. He says "Is it a father figure?" (let's say he can stretch it, if needed, but usually if he says this, it is "father", which I think is -more- difficult than your suits. But I digress....)
Let's say that you both get a "Yes".
If JE says...."Male, older, father figure"...he's right with the "suit" as you were with Spades. He goes on to say, "Is it a 'J' name?" so let's (for the sake of argument) say 1 in 13 older male names would start with 'J'. And, in your card examples, You say "Is it a 4?" and one in 13 cards in spades would be a "4".
michaellee says: "Spade?" (1 in 4) "Yes."
JE says: "Older male, father figure?" (1 in 6) "Yes".
One difference is that you know there are spades in your deck. JE doesn’t know the man has a deceased father/father figure in his "deck". (But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that if he’s wrong, he can still make it work...grandfather...great grandfather...uncle...although if he had to fish that much most people like me would not count it a hit).
michaellee goes on to say, "4?" (1 in 13 chance)
JE says, "J” (Let’s call it a 1 in 13 chance).
If you're right, you've accomplished your task..."4 of spades is your card."
If JE's right, he's said, "father's name starts with 'J'"....Impressive or not? You decide.
Let's say he feels its better to get the exact name. If he waits for confirmation of "J", as you wait for spades, that's one thing. But sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't (i.e. not a card trick).
But, more to the point, is what happens if you're wrong and JE's wrong.
But if John says, “I feel a father figure” (no) a J (yes)...he has not reduced his chance of getting the name right to 1 in 3.
If you say, "Spade, like a 4 or 5" and get three "No's", you've significantly helped yourself figure out the card.
If JE says, "father...with a "J" name like "Joe"" and gets three "No's"....he's not a whole lot closer to getting a hit at all.
Or if he says "I feel a father figure" (yes), a "J" name for him (no) then he -still- hasn't significantly reduced his chances of getting the right person/right name to 1 in 3.
I disagree. I think his “older male” is the equivalent of “spades”.
No, “J” is his equivalent, though his possibility for error is much greater than yours.
No. Because, unlike JE, each time you guess you are significantly narrowing your population.
No, because you can be right on the spade, but right on “4 or 5”, and still mathematically find the right card in only 4 guesses.
JE can be right on “J” but has no guarantee that he can –ever- get the correct “J” name, no matter how much he guesses.
And, unlike you, if he is wrong on “J”...he can’t be right on “Joe or John” either.
That’s where the analogy most breaks down, michaellee. Your first, second, and third guesses are still helping you narrow it down to the right card, whether they’re right or whether they’re wrong.
With JE, if he’s wrong on “J”, he can’t be right on Joe or John (guess #2 and #3) either. And, also unlike you, JE can’t be right on “Joe or John” and wrong on “J”. You can be right on “4 or 5” and wrong on “spades” and, either way, it helps you get the right answer. JE's "Joe/John" guesses just don't work that way because they are dependent on the "J" itself being correct.
michaellee
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 633
Your definition of statistical dependence is correct when applied to a scenario where only a single confirmation possibility exists.
If the sitter simply confirmed(yes, his name is Joe or John or starts with J), this would then mean each guess of JE's statement was statistically dependent. But this is not true as to how JE applies the statement in the real world. Look again at:
Question #3 c Likewise, when JE says "A J connection, like John or Joe" is he looking for one J connection, or is he looking for three J connections?
JE is looking for ONE Connection. However, the statement of "A J connection, like John or Joe" allows for THREE possible, independent confirmations. To confirm the statement, the sitter can confirm either:
1. His name was John.
2. His name was Joe.
3. His name began with the letter "J" but was neither John nor Joe.
Statistical independence exists in the THREE possible confirmations, each of which correlates to ONE of the THREE guesses, so each guess remains independent, and must be counted as such.
If the sitter simply confirmed(yes, his name is Joe or John or starts with J), this would then mean each guess of JE's statement was statistically dependent. But this is not true as to how JE applies the statement in the real world. Look again at:
Question #3 c Likewise, when JE says "A J connection, like John or Joe" is he looking for one J connection, or is he looking for three J connections?
JE is looking for ONE Connection. However, the statement of "A J connection, like John or Joe" allows for THREE possible, independent confirmations. To confirm the statement, the sitter can confirm either:
1. His name was John.
2. His name was Joe.
3. His name began with the letter "J" but was neither John nor Joe.
Statistical independence exists in the THREE possible confirmations, each of which correlates to ONE of the THREE guesses, so each guess remains independent, and must be counted as such.
The short version of the above is this....
Working with a deck of 52 cards...4 suits, 13 numbers for each....is quite different from the "deck" a psychic medium works with. And "guessing right" is a totally different process for each.
And, unlike you, if he is wrong on “J”...he can’t be right on “Joe or John” either.
That’s where the analogy most breaks down, michaellee. Your first, second, and third guesses are still helping you narrow it down to the right card, whether they’re right or whether they’re wrong.
JE's "Joe/John" guesses just don't work the way your cards do because they are dependent on the "J" itself being correct. And, likewise, if they're right..."J" would be right.
Working with a deck of 52 cards...4 suits, 13 numbers for each....is quite different from the "deck" a psychic medium works with. And "guessing right" is a totally different process for each.
- michaellee looks at a "deck" of 52...actually, cards presorted into overlapping groups of 4 and 13. JE's "deck of possible deceased" is nothing like that.
- A card deck has four "suits". JE's "deck" has six (above...below...to your side...male/female)
- JE's guess: "father" (1 in 6) is comparable to Michaellee's guess "spades"(1 in 4), comparable to finding the suit.
- Michaellee's guess "4 or 5?" would be comparable to JE saying, "B or J" name? Although JE's guess comes no where -near- narrowing it like michaellee's does.
- One difference is that you know, michaellee, that there are spades in your deck. JE doesn’t know the man has a deceased father/father figure in his "deck" or not. (Maybe he could make it fit, but that's not the point here).
- The most important difference is in what wrong guesses do for michaellee vs. JE.
If you, michaellee, say, "Spade, like a 4 or 5" and get three "No's", you've significantly helped yourself figure out the card.
If JE says, "father...with a "J" name like "Joe"" and gets three "No's"....he's not a whole lot closer to getting a hit at all.
And, unlike you, if he is wrong on “J”...he can’t be right on “Joe or John” either.
That’s where the analogy most breaks down, michaellee. Your first, second, and third guesses are still helping you narrow it down to the right card, whether they’re right or whether they’re wrong.
JE's "Joe/John" guesses just don't work the way your cards do because they are dependent on the "J" itself being correct. And, likewise, if they're right..."J" would be right.