Looking for Skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
You could be mixing me up with someone else, Pixel. I did PM you with your real name but I signed off with my first name which is only given to males
 
Fascinating as the question of Alderbank's gender is I think we should return to clarifying the most important point. Is flaccon prepared to run an objective test if Alderbank is not immediately convinced by her recordings and images, and if so precisely what protocol and success criteria will be used? My impression is that Alderbank would not be prepared to make the trip unless this point is settled in advance.
 
flaccon said:
I am sure the tests are fine,
Click to expand...
I'm sure that you think they are fine. But please understand our concern when you don't show any signs of understanding what "objective" means or what would constitute a reasonably strict test protocol.
You have however shown clear signs of having very low standards of acceptance based entirely on subjective criteria.

flaccon said:
and maybe we can come up with other things during testing, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Another example of not understanding what is meant by "test protocol"

flaccon said:
The table is ready and the time is to be 5pm today. I am aware that Alderbank (he) has a 10k run on today, he may postpone, or even cancel, again I don't know. The test is ready and set. Lets remember, its just an introduction, and a few private tests.
Click to expand...
Did you see this post by Alderbank written this morning?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9281506&postcount=924

Submit and agree on a detailed objective test protocol, not a vague "he'll turn up and become a believer like I am" statement.
 
Pixel42 said:
So you did. I'm an idiot. :o
Click to expand...
Every village has one... and apparently there's one born every 13 seconds. :D

And thanks for clearing that up Alderbank, it's not important except that it thankfully makes terms such as he/she, (s)he etc. redundant. :)
 
I'm thinking that both Alderbank and floccan should have an independent witness present. Not just to help document (film maybe?) the events but for the sake of safety. The outside chance that some kind of accusation is made by either party leading up to, during or following the test should not be discounted either.
 
flaccon said:
I'll also hold a card up and ask the spirit that will be working with us, to repeat that card.
Click to expand...

As others have noted, that wouldn't be a test if Alderbank was in the room and saw the card. It's how pariedolia works. Once a person knows what they're supposed to hear or see, they're more apt to imagine that they're hearing or seeing it.

However, it could be a not-very-well-controlled but nonetheless interesting test if you showed the card to the spirits but not Alderbank, and asked them to name it. Then, without giving Alderbank any clues, you played the recording and asked him to name the card.

That wouldn't be a real test either, because you could simply whisper "five of clubs" for the recording to pick up, or any other slight of hand.

But it seems pretty obvious that what you've been doing is telling people what they should hear, and then of course they can "hear" it. That's how pariedolia works. If they weren't told, the sound of "five of clubs" might sound like "size of bugs" to someone else. But by clueing people in to what they're supposed to hear, and adding a big emotional build-up, you've been presenting a successful show that seems convincing to gullible people, but that will evaporate with objective testing. That's why you want yourself and Alderbank to see the card, then listen to the recording. It fits the formula that's worked before.

My feeling is that you subconsciously realize these spirits aren't real, and are wanting to craft demonstrations that avoid any real testing, because you know any real tests will fail. It's why the "spirits" suddenly started claiming they didn't want to do circus tricks. Subconsciously, you didn't want to do even any rudimentary controlled testing, because you knew the spirits would fail, and that would mean you'd have to tick off some other box: maybe instead of "spirits," "mental illness." (Note that pariedolia itself is normal and not a mental illness, but mental suffering without an objective reason can be a sign of mental illness.)

It seems that everyone here, including me, is looking forward to seeing an objective test and I'm pretty sure would be totally intrigued if the "spirits" were able to do something inexplicable. We're not afraid of real spirits existing, but we're not going to believe in real spirits just because of what boils down to a good magic show that only seems believable when no one's allowed to look behind the curtain.
 
Last edited:
Alderbank said:
Several good protocols imho but all different and flaccon must decide which will give best result or whether she has a different idea.

I will not pursue any testing which involves listening to recordings then making value judgements about what is 'said'. To me that is just a test of my own imagination and creativity.

I will be offline today until about 3pm BST. Unless flaccon has committed to a detailed protocol by then I will reschedule so as not to put her under too much pressure. I think that up to now she has made no comment about any detailed protocols.
Click to expand...

flacon, you must agree in advance exactly what testing we will do and how we will do it.

I am fairly comfortable with testing procedures in general - I have carried out clinical trials, I regularly do investigations, audits and assessments as part of my job and I am an accredited auditor for BSI and other systems. However this kind of test is as new to me as it is to you. I want it to be fair and robust. Small innocent changes which I naively don't understand could render the whole exercise valueless. I never thought of the spectacles or the pillow case, for instance.

Only you know what the spirits can and can't do so you should say what the test should be. Others here as you can see will help with the design so that it is fair and will give meaningful results. You have to agree in advance to the detail of the test procedure and that is exactly what we will stick to. If I am being unreasonable I am sure wiser posters here will be quick to tell me so.

Scanning through recent threads, I don't think we are quite there yet. If I have missed it and final procedure is agreed, I apologise. Point me to it and I'll print it off, gather the materials together and be on my way. If we need more time and discussion to agree the procedure, let's focus on getting that done and reschedule to another day.

Does that sound OK with everyone?

(Perhaps more experienced members of this Forum would be relaxed about making up a testing procedure on the hoof. But I need to walk before I can run)
 
Looks like I'm going to have to head out without knowing whether the meeting is even going ahead.

Good luck guys, and I'll catch up on the thread with interest later tonight.
 
Flaccon, please be aware that any protocol where you get to see the card until after you have written down what you think the spirits say, is unacceptable. Let Alderbank show the card to the spirits, but keeping it hidden from you, or even better, let Alderbank hold the card so that neither you nor Alderbank can see the card (but let the spirits have a good look).

And, Alderbank, I am sorry for calling you Alderman in a previous post. I write on an iPad, and strange substitutions happen!
 
flaccon, It is understandable why you might want to ignore my posting from yesterday. Therefore, I'll include it here one last time. I really hope you can address the concerns I speak about below. If not, I guess I will be left to form my own conclusions and act accordingly. Might you take a minute to consider the following and offer a reply?

Thanks,
DAO
Dumb All Over said:
Thank you for answering my question.

You understand that your thread was posted here in the "Million Dollar Challenge" section of the forum, a sub-forum for those who seriously want to challenge Mr. Randi and take his test, yes? Since you have no intention of pursuing Mr. Randi's challenge, wouldn't you agree your thread belongs somewhere else within the forums? The "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" section perhaps, or maybe even the "Religion and Philosophy" section?

DAO
Click to expand...
 
flaccon said:
Do you mean that he didn't tell you his name was Barbara?
Click to expand...

Uh, unless Flaccon has already learned stealth posting, this was her last word before signing off half an hour ago. (Unless she and Alderbank are in contact on the land line.)

Seems rather bad timing with 1:45 to go before the supposed meeting/test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom