Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
It's laughable to see all the pseudo skeptics falling over themselves trying to find fault with the test protocol when all they are really doing is applying their preset bias denying telepathy. They try so desperately to find a way to discredit the test where in fact the only real fault was the one that Michel himself brought up. Their math skills were tested with a very simple probability problem and they punted it. I found it particularly amusing when they suggested seeking a test with a local skeptics group before comming back here. It's as if they feel they are better qualified to test claims because they are hanging off the coattails of the JREF.

I had made a couple of minor critiques of the protocol but most really aren't all that important. the one critique that is important is that of falsifiability. If a test cannot change ones belief then what is the point in conducting the test. Both the pseudo skeptics and Michel have failed to address this issue.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that anyone could get to this point in the thread and arrive at the conclusion that Dan O has. There is post after post detailing the problems with Michel's procedures. Perhaps Dan just scans the thread and has not read most of the posts. That would explain why he fails to answer, or even acknowledge so many questions put to him. Then again, he does have very....odd interpretations of the posts he does try to respond to. So maybe the issue is something else entirely.

Or maybe Dan really does not think there are significant problems with Michel's methods. Maybe he believes it is perfectly normal to have no set protocols for data analysis. Maybe he is OK with the test subject creating new rules after the test is complete. Maybe Dan is OK with throwing out data that does not fit the hypothesis, even if that data is the majority of the data collected.
 
Wait, did I miss something? are we still talking about the same test? the one with the single-figure sample size, for which Michel H himself calculated the results to be not significantly different from what would be expected by chance? The one whose results didn't falsify the null hypothesis?

This also reminds me of a thread a while ago where some guy thought everyone could read his mind but that there was a global conspiracy to deny it...
 
TheSapient said:
I find it amusing that anyone could get to this point in the thread and arrive at the conclusion that Dan O has. There is post after post detailing the problems with Michel's procedures. Perhaps Dan just scans the thread and has not read most of the posts. That would explain why he fails to answer, or even acknowledge so many questions put to him. Then again, he does have very....odd interpretations of the posts he does try to respond to. So maybe the issue is something else entirely.

Or maybe Dan really does not think there are significant problems with Michel's methods. Maybe he believes it is perfectly normal to have no set protocols for data analysis. Maybe he is OK with the test subject creating new rules after the test is complete. Maybe Dan is OK with throwing out data that does not fit the hypothesis, even if that data is the majority of the data collected.
Click to expand...


Maybe if you actually read what I said you would see how wrong you are.
 
Dan O. said:
Maybe if you actually read what I said you would see how wrong you are.
Click to expand...


I actually read what you said here:

Dan O. said:
They try so desperately to find a way to discredit the test where in fact the only real fault was the one that Michel himself brought up.
Click to expand...


And can only conclude if you're not going for the TLA Special Award for Sarcasm then you're in no position to be pointing out other people's wrongevity.
 
Akhenaten said:
I actually read what you said here:

​


And can only conclude if you're not going for the TLA Special Award for Sarcasm then you're in no position to be pointing out other people's wrongevity.
Click to expand...


Then why don't I forget about sarcasm and focus on your wrongevity.

Your first post in this thread:
Akhenaten said:
I'm getting equally strong impressions of "2" and "4" so should I submit something like xx,xx or should I split it into separate posts?

Also, when will my hash be delivered?
Click to expand...

Is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the test.

That is followed by:
Akhenaten said:
It's not much use coming up with these various methods to create an illusion of integrity when all you're going to do is use that idiotic "credibility scale" to declare invalid anyone's guesses that you don't like.

Why would we even be bothered with the possibility of you tampering with your chosen number when we already consider it most likely that there will be an even spread between all four numbers anyway?

There's no need for you to resort to subterfuge when it's just as easy and far more effective for you to blatantly reject all the misses and just count the hits.
Click to expand...

Where you declare your ignorance of the protocol.

Do you really not understand the validity of what Michel was trying to do? You show so much more intelligence in other threads. If you just want to play games you should stick to the Humor section where your talents can be appreciated.

in [Post 56], you acknowledge Hokulele's explanation of the protocol.

Then in [Post 83]
Akhenaten said:
You have got to be kidding.

This 'credibility rating' thing really takes this from being a poorly thought-out test and turns it into a complete farce.


"And I believe in telepathy."

Really???
Click to expand...

You forget that it was explained to you and revert to your old way.

In [Post 58], [Post 60] and on you are back to trying to disrupt the thread.

let's not forget your forged document in [Post 540]. You didn't even do the basic research to cross check Michel's education claim, you just dismissed it and proceeded to ridicule it.


So, if it wrongevity you want to talk about, You certainly have provided plenty of material.
 
Dan O. said:
Then why don't I forget about sarcasm and focus on your wrongevity.

Your first post in this thread:
​

Is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the test.

That is followed by:

​

Where you declare your ignorance of the protocol.

Do you really not understand the validity of what Michel was trying to do? You show so much more intelligence in other threads. If you just want to play games you should stick to the Humor section where your talents can be appreciated.

in [Post 56], you acknowledge Hokulele's explanation of the protocol.

Then in [Post 83]
​

You forget that it was explained to you and revert to your old way.

In [Post 58], [Post 60] and on you are back to trying to disrupt the thread.

let's not forget your forged document in [Post 540]. You didn't even do the basic research to cross check Michel's education claim, you just dismissed it and proceeded to ridicule it.


So, if it wrongevity you want to talk about, You certainly have provided plenty of material.
Click to expand...


"if it wrongevity you want to talk about"?

Really? How old are you? Can't you express yourself in English? When has wrongevity been a word?
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
It's an ancient Egyptian word. English speakers always make a mess of things when they attempt to use it.
Click to expand...


I looked it up on Urbandictionary and apparently the kids are picking it up again. They're still making a mess of it, but Dan is trying, so you've got to give him an A for effort, if not for anything else.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
It's laughable to see all the pseudo skeptics falling over themselves trying to find fault with the test protocol when all they are really doing is applying their preset bias denying telepathy.
Click to expand...

Did you read the previous thread in which many people offered useful advice on how to improve the protocol and found every suggestion ignored? If there is any preset bias, it is on Michel's part as he insists that "credibility ratings" are a rational and effective means to improve the usefulness of telepathy tests. Do you, Dan O., consider credibility ratings helpful in any way?

Dan O. said:
If a test cannot change ones belief then what is the point in conducting the test.
Click to expand...

I can describe the tests that would make me change my position on telepathy.

Can you describe the tests that would make you change your position?
Can Michel H. describe the tests that would make him change his position?
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
What about answering Ladewig's questions rather than engaging in presumptuous gainsaying.
Click to expand...


He made a statement, I made a counter statement. I'd like to see him prove me wrong.

As for the questions, they have already been answered in this thread.
 
Dan O. said:
He made a statement, I made a counter statement. I'd like to see him prove me wrong.

As for the questions, they have already been answered in this thread.
Click to expand...

Not all of them. Anyway I'm sure we'll see another 'true test' thread and Michel will sift the data and we'll go round the mulberry bush again.
 
Dan O. said:
Which questions do you believe have not been answered?
Click to expand...

For one why you would take any test seriously after the person giving it said [paraphrase] "I reject your reality and substitute my own, Carry the 9, Divide by Pi...I AM PSYCHIC!"

Or why you seem to be so critical of people suggesting Michel may indeed need to get professional help.
 
Dan O, Michel believes everyone can hear his thoughts but most of us lie and say we can't. Can you hear Michel's thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom