New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Matthew Ellard]

Consciously talking to animals

....for example, when a dog is barking, I talk to him/her from inside my apartment with a weak voice.....

Involuntary talking to animals

My claim is that I have a tendency to telepathically and involuntarily communicate my thoughts to other people and to animals.

You really need to get your stories straight next time.

Sometimes you claim you can talk to specific animals. Sometimes you claim it's involuntary. Sometimes you claim your ESP with animals is easy to verify. Sometimes, you claim it is impossible to verify.

You are obviously making these stories up as you go.

 

[Michel H]

... Sometimes you claim your ESP with animals is easy to verify. Sometimes, you claim it is impossible to verify.
...

Really? Where did I say ESP with animals is impossible to verify?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Really? Where did I say ESP with animals is impossible to verify?

Cool. Set out your detailed scientific experiment using animals. That way you wont have "non-credible humans" ruining your "results". I'll tell the Belgium Skeptics that you are ready for testing.

So what's your new version of your claim this week? Do you involuntarily communicate with animals or voluntarily communicate with animals. Can you remember which claim you are running with this week?

 

[Michel H]

... So what's your new version of your claim this week? Do you involuntarily communicate with animals or voluntarily communicate with animals. ...

Believe it or not, I do not have a switch on my forehead with a "telepathy" position, and a "no telepathy" position. This means that my telepathy is always uncontrolled and involuntary, I seem to be constantly "leaking my thoughts" to the whole world, whether I like it or not.

However, I can sometimes do some (voluntary) experiments with dogs or humans. For example, I can say to myself: "I'm going to just approximately point (using my right arm and my right hand) towards this dog who cannot see me, and whose barking annoys me, and see what happens". That's a voluntary experiment.

 

[fagin]

That's exactly how I make the sun rise and set.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Believe it or not, I do not have a switch on my forehead with a "telepathy" position, and a "no telepathy" position.

That is perhaps the only thing you've said that we all do believe.

Dave

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes, that's right, I should have written "Does this mean?" instead of "Does this means".

No, not necessarily, that's the point I was making when I was replying to jond. You seem to have curiously reversed my reasoning, with your patronizing tone.

You considered it, though.

Let me be more explicit: I was intending to suggest that it seems unreasonable to me that you even raised the topic of whether a minor grammatical or spelling slip was a reason to ignore the substance of somone's point. It suggests to me that perhaps you are looking for excuses rather than considering what's being said. Or maybe that you see things in an overconnected way, as if one small error in their writing must be the tip of an iceberg of error in their thinking.

Should we dismiss what you said because you wrote "means" instead of "mean"? "No" is the reasonable answer, whereas "not necessarily" is a worrying answer.

I apologise for the patronising tone I used earlier, though I am pleased to note that you had no trouble in detecting it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No number was given in this test. However, P.J. Denyer posted
(notice the the two words "and")
Donn had posted:

It seems to me (though others will perhaps dispute this) that an echo is somewhat related to number two because, when an echo takes place, you have the incident wave, and then the reflected wave.
So, the correct number seems to have been suggested twice. Something similar happened on Yahoo Answers, for the same test (in French): https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161216153219AAbdyoG .

Extending this style of analysis further, I note that the number of words in each post by another poster from the beginning to the end of this challenge, converted to a number in the range 1 to 10 by the usual means, is as follows:

Donn 6 words -> 6
P.J. Denyer 5 words -> 5
fagin 5 words -> 5
abaddon 18 words, 1+8=9 -> 9
jond 41 words, 4+1=5 -> 5
jond 6 words -> 6
jond 8 words -> 8
P.J. Denyer 89 words, 8+9=17, 1+7=8 -> 8
jond 21 words, 2+1=3 -> 3
abaddon 25 words, 2+5=7 -> 7
Matthew Ellard 49 words, 4+9=13, 1+3=4 -> 4
Matthew Ellard 47 words, 4+7=11, 1+1=2 -> 2

We have, therefore, one instance of 2 in 12 responses, more or less exactly the proportion that would be expected as a result of random chance.

Also, note that one post by Matthew Ellard includes the typo of a missing "R", the 18th letter of the alphabet; 1+8=9 -> 9, a verifiable numerical result, and a "wrong" one, from a typo.

Michel, I'm sure that if you choose to look hard enough, you can find something in any piece of text that reminds you of the number 2. By the same token, you will be able to find something that reminds you of any other arbitrary number you care to think of. If you treat as hits the instances where you can come up with a line of argument leading to your result as a 2 and ignore any other responses, including the vast number of non-responses (because if everyone in the world can hear your thoughts then everyone in the world is aware you want them to post the number 2 on the ISF), you are guilty of the worst possible kind of cherry-picking.

I know you won't take any notice of this because you're convinced you'll pass every test before you start, and will re-interpret your repeated failures as successes however they occur. But at least you can't pretend nobody's told you what you're doing wrong.

Dave

 

[Donn]

That's exactly how I make the sun rise and set.

Steady on, mate. My coffee belongs in my mug and not on the screen!

 

[Michel H]

Extending this style of analysis further, I note that the number of words in each post by another poster from the beginning to the end of this challenge, converted to a number in the range 1 to 10 by the usual means, is as follows:

Donn 6 words -> 6
P.J. Denyer 5 words -> 5
fagin 5 words -> 5
abaddon 18 words, 1+8=9 -> 9
jond 41 words, 4+1=5 -> 5
jond 6 words -> 6
jond 8 words -> 8
P.J. Denyer 89 words, 8+9=17, 1+7=8 -> 8
jond 21 words, 2+1=3 -> 3
abaddon 25 words, 2+5=7 -> 7
Matthew Ellard 49 words, 4+9=13, 1+3=4 -> 4
Matthew Ellard 47 words, 4+7=11, 1+1=2 -> 2

We have, therefore, one instance of 2 in 12 responses, more or less exactly the proportion that would be expected as a result of random chance.

Also, note that one post by Matthew Ellard includes the typo of a missing "R", the 18th letter of the alphabet; 1+8=9 -> 9, a verifiable numerical result, and a "wrong" one, from a typo.

Michel, I'm sure that if you choose to look hard enough, you can find something in any piece of text that reminds you of the number 2. By the same token, you will be able to find something that reminds you of any other arbitrary number you care to think of. If you treat as hits the instances where you can come up with a line of argument leading to your result as a 2 and ignore any other responses, including the vast number of non-responses (because if everyone in the world can hear your thoughts then everyone in the world is aware you want them to post the number 2 on the ISF), you are guilty of the worst possible kind of cherry-picking.

I know you won't take any notice of this because you're convinced you'll pass every test before you start, and will re-interpret your repeated failures as successes however they occur. But at least you can't pretend nobody's told you what you're doing wrong.

Dave

I have already seen these lines of reasoning several times before in my online telepathy tests, Dave, but I remain unconvinced, because your argument is much more complicated than my simple analysis of

... and and not helping you.

, and I think this is very important here: "2" was really suggested in a very obvious way by P.J. Denyer, in a part of a post where he seemed to become friendlier (compared to what he had posted right before), and this is important regarding credibility too. If you look at Stephanie's answer for the same test here: https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161216153219AAbdyoG ("nn", when the correct answer was 2), you can see that the correct answer, here too, was suggested, rather than given plainly (of course the letter n probably referred to "non" ("no" in French), presumably expressing a great reluctance to admit my apparent telepathy). It is obvious that I have to adapt my analyses of test results to what people are willing to do, and are really doing, rather than to some kind of ideal, unrealistic view.

As to the fact that many people did not show up to answer in this test, keep one thing in mind, that skeptics seem to often forget: people are not necessarily eager to help me, and to defend the truth. This is something that is very important to understand. Some people might prefer to defend a worldview which is more pleasant, agreeable and comfortable to them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have already seen these lines of reasoning several times before in my online telepathy tests, Dave, but I remain unconvinced,

Yes, of course you do. You've erected a wall of non-falsifiability around your deluded belief system that we all know we cannot possibly penetrate. I'm simply pointing out to you how flawed your "analysis" is so that if you ever achieve rationality you won't be able to complain that nobody told you what nonsense you were spouting.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

Yes, of course you do. You've erected a wall of non-falsifiability around your deluded belief system that we all know we cannot possibly penetrate. I'm simply pointing out to you how flawed your "analysis" is so that if you ever achieve rationality you won't be able to complain that nobody told you what nonsense you were spouting.

Dave

Did you look at Stephanie's answer? (see my post #407, I have edited after your reply) What do you think about it?

 

[abaddon]

I have already seen these lines of reasoning several times before in my online telepathy tests, Dave, but I remain unconvinced, because your argument is much more complicated than my simple analysis of
, and I think this is very important here: "2" was really suggested in a very obvious way by P.J. Denyer, in a part of a post where he seemed to become friendlier (compared to what he had posted right before), and this is important regarding credibility too. If you look at Stephanie's answer for the same test here: https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161216153219AAbdyoG ("nn", when the correct answer was 2), you can see that the correct answer, here too, was suggested, rather than given plainly (of course the letter n probably referred to "non" ("no" in French), presumably expressing a great reluctance to admit my apparent telepathy). It is obvious that I have to adapt my analyses of test results to what people are willing to do, and are really doing, rather than to some kind of ideal, unrealistic view.

As to the fact that many people did not show up to answer in this test, keep one thing in mind, that skeptics seem to often forget: people are not necessarily eager to help me, and to defend the truth. This is something that is very important to understand. Some people might prefer to defend a worldview which is more pleasant, agreeable and comfortable to them.

We are defending the truth. The truth is that you do not have telepathy.

We are eager to help you realise the truth that you are not telepathic.

 

[Donn]

Did you look at Stephanie's answer? (see my post #407, I have edited after your reply) What do you think about it?

I think you've yet to meet a reply that cannot be corrupted.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did you look at Stephanie's answer? (see my post #407, I have edited after your reply) What do you think about it?

Six answers, none of them correct, but you've pretended one of them was even though it didn't even specify a number. Even if it had been correct, it would be within what would be expected from random chance. So, frankly, it was precisely what I would have expected from you.

Dave

ETA: I'm actually surprised that you didn't count Alexandre's answer as correct, based on the poster's number of years on the forum being 2.

 

[Michel H]

Six answers, none of them correct, but you've pretended one of them was even though it didn't even specify a number. Even if it had been correct, it would be within what would be expected from random chance. So, frankly, it was precisely what I would have expected from you.

Dave

ETA: I'm actually surprised that you didn't count Alexandre's answer as correct, based on the poster's number of years on the forum being 2.

It seems to me that you didn't answer my question, Dave. I asked you: "What do you think about Stephanie's answer?", and now you are talking about the other answers, and claiming very incorrectly that I said Stephanie's answer was correct.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It seems to me that you didn't answer my question, Dave.

Your reading comprehension is appallingly bad, then.

I asked you: "What do you think about Stephanie's answer?", and now you are talking about the other answers, and claiming very incorrectly that I said Stephanie's answer was correct.

No, I said you pretended Stephanie's answer was correct. In case your scroll bar's broken, here's you pretending it was correct:

If you look at Stephanie's answer for the same test here: https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161216153219AAbdyoG ("nn", when the correct answer was 2), you can see that the correct answer, here too, was suggested, rather than given plainly

Just to spell it out for you, what I think of Stephanie's answer is that (a) nowhere does it state the number "2", so you have no cause to consider it even suggestive of the correct answer, and (b) as I said, even if it were correct, the presence of one correct answer in six total answers is indistinguishable from random chance.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

Your reading comprehension is appallingly bad, then.



No, I said you pretended Stephanie's answer was correct. In case your scroll bar's broken, here's you pretending it was correct:



Just to spell it out for you, what I think of Stephanie's answer is that (a) nowhere does it state the number "2", so you have no cause to consider it even suggestive of the correct answer, and (b) as I said, even if it were correct, the presence of one correct answer in six total answers is indistinguishable from random chance.

Dave

I never "pretended" that Stephanie's answer was correct, I said it suggested the correct number, which is very different. I also note that you did not look at the credibilities of the 5 other answers, even though I have now been spending years explaining to you that credibility is an essential aspect in Michel H's telepathy tests.

Let's assume I do a telepathy test whose target is 6, and the only answer I get is "ssssss". Then target 9 yields "sssssssss". Target 2 yields "ss". Target 3 yields "sss", and so on, a large number of times, with each time the numbers of letters s in the answer matching the number to guess. According to your very rigid viewpoint, such results would be worthless, and are not even suggestive of the correct answers (!!). I am sorry, Dave Rogers, but I don't think this is the proper way of doing Science, because a true scientist must be flexible, and adapt to his observations, rather than trying to impose his own preconceived ideas.

 

[Donn]

I suggest that you pretend.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am sorry Dave Rogers, but I don't think this is the proper way of doing Science, because a true scientist must be flexible, and adapt to his observations, rather than trying to impose his own preconceived ideas.

We can add the scientific method to the long list of things you're wrong about, then. And let me point out that your analogy is flawed; you got six answers, which were nn, 7, 9, 8, 1 and 7.

Dave