Accepted. Pick me up with your spaceship and let's head down to a smashing party on Omicron Persei 8. Transmitting coordinates...
Paranormal detection
- Thread starter reason1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rupert sheldrake
Accepted. Pick me up with your spaceship and let's head down to a smashing party on Omicron Persei 8. Transmitting coordinates...
Lrrr
Stealth Hug Ninja
Kariboo
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 496
The problem is twofold 1) that your test is NOT self evident. No matter how often you repeat it or convince yourself that it is.
2) confirmation bias is independent of self evidence. It is confirmation bias if you ignore the misses and count the hits, period. No matter if your test is self evident or not.
Kariboo
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 496
(S)he doesn't have to write a long post, a proposal of what (s)he can do, under which circumstances and with what kind of success rate would ideally only be 3 sentences long. It seems with claims like this the longer the post the more convoluted the claim gets and it becomes less clear what a claimant thinks they are able to do.
Exactly. That is one reason why I try to keep discussions with potential applicants to a minimum.
Reason1 should state his claim and the success/failure scenario, as per rule #1 from the Challenge Application page?
It seems simple, does it not?
Kariboo
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 496
It actually IS simple. You would only need to know what you think you can do, even if in a test it pans out that you were mistaken. Which is fine and is exactly how science works.
I am amazed at the amount of people that come in with a generalized statement but when pressed are not able to make a clear and precise statement as to what it is they can do. You;d think that that would be something you would find out before you start broadcasting to the world that you have magical powers.
I used to be amazed at that, too. Then I tried some of the things Randi, Shermer, Dawkins et al. suggested and that changed.
When someone said "I saw Jesus and he talked to me.", I asked: "How did you know it was Jesus?"
And I actually got responses like "He had a beard and holes in his hands." or "I just knew it was him."
Or when people went to alternative healers. "She really helped cure my headache." "What did she do?" "She did some acupressure and told me to buy (expensive because she peddled them) teas."
Or, my favorite: "The horoscope was totally right today." "What did it tell you?" "I would have financial success." On that day, the person got her previously agreed-upon vacation bonus.
On numerous occasions I got the How-dare-you-do-not-take-what-I-say-at-face-value-look.
No, I am no longer amazed. Humans are said to be pattern-seeking creatures. Perhaps reason1 was seeking for a pattern. Will reason1 be able to prove that this pattern exists outside of his imagination? Stay tuned.
Last edited:
Kariboo
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 496
I'm not necessarily amazed that people think these things in general, I'm amazed that they first proclaim to the world that they have this ability and only after that start thinking about what that means. I guess I would be more hesitant to make these claims public if I thought I had them. I try to live my life not making promises that I don't know if I can keep so to speak. Guess we are all different.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
I think another issue is that reason1 does not have a clue what self-evident actually is.
reason1, it is not something that is evident to you, it is something that is evident to everyone. This if I as an observer to your test saw somebody staring at you and you did not react, it would be evident of two possibilities:
1. You do not have the power you claim.
2. According to you, he/she was not staring "the right way" - as you define it.
The first is self evident. The second can never, ever be tested, because you or I cannot ever know what the person was thinking when he/she stared at you.
You need to overcome this as an issue before you even start thinking about a protocol. Because if somebody in a crowd stares at you, and you do not react, that is a fail on your part.
Norm
reason1, it is not something that is evident to you, it is something that is evident to everyone. This if I as an observer to your test saw somebody staring at you and you did not react, it would be evident of two possibilities:
1. You do not have the power you claim.
2. According to you, he/she was not staring "the right way" - as you define it.
The first is self evident. The second can never, ever be tested, because you or I cannot ever know what the person was thinking when he/she stared at you.
You need to overcome this as an issue before you even start thinking about a protocol. Because if somebody in a crowd stares at you, and you do not react, that is a fail on your part.
Norm
Last edited:
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
reason1 --
UncaJimmy came up with a pretty good protocol idea, the one using hats & cameras. Any objections to it?
Understand that if you intend to claim that you can detect people's intentions or emotional states (and, especially, if people's intentions or emotional states are central to your argument), your protocol is going to have to demonstrate those people's intentions or emotional states, and will have to control for the possibility that they are lying, mistaken, or have forgotten about their intentions or emotional states.
I strongly second the "H3LL Test". That is, pretend that H3LL is going to try to do exactly what you do, only by trickery (using reflections, sounds, sudden movements, ugly hats, lying buddies sprinkled in the crowd, whatever). Your test has result with you passing, and her failing.
Again, UncaJimmy's protocol seems to be a good, and in fact ingenious, start. Any problems with it?
Edited to add: I like UncaJimmy's protocol because it removes the need to prove someone's intention; it's a foregone conclusion that people who have no idea what the test is about, upon being told that they're to focus on the person with the most interesting hat, will do so. It's quite possible that there might be the occasional trickster who does not do as he or she is told. But I think that with a sufficiently high level of success, the "miss" due to such a person will be wiped out by the overwhelming series of successes.
UncaJimmy came up with a pretty good protocol idea, the one using hats & cameras. Any objections to it?
Understand that if you intend to claim that you can detect people's intentions or emotional states (and, especially, if people's intentions or emotional states are central to your argument), your protocol is going to have to demonstrate those people's intentions or emotional states, and will have to control for the possibility that they are lying, mistaken, or have forgotten about their intentions or emotional states.
I strongly second the "H3LL Test". That is, pretend that H3LL is going to try to do exactly what you do, only by trickery (using reflections, sounds, sudden movements, ugly hats, lying buddies sprinkled in the crowd, whatever). Your test has result with you passing, and her failing.
Again, UncaJimmy's protocol seems to be a good, and in fact ingenious, start. Any problems with it?
Edited to add: I like UncaJimmy's protocol because it removes the need to prove someone's intention; it's a foregone conclusion that people who have no idea what the test is about, upon being told that they're to focus on the person with the most interesting hat, will do so. It's quite possible that there might be the occasional trickster who does not do as he or she is told. But I think that with a sufficiently high level of success, the "miss" due to such a person will be wiped out by the overwhelming series of successes.
Last edited:
reason1
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 275
...what about the reflexes !How am i supposed to know if there are any misses ?! :
...are really saying that ?!there is a name for your argument ,which is:
disconfirmation bias ! : ignoring self-evident hits and only counting non self-evident misses.
PS:again,be patient,even if i respond after a 2 weeks, i'll be still fulfilling my promises.why we need the rush !?
Last edited:
Kariboo
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 496
What about them?
1) you haven't proven that what you do is a reflex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reflexes_(alphabetical)
Which one of the reflexes mentioned is the one you are describing?
2) It is not evident (self- or otherwise) that you turning your head has a correlation with people staring at you.
Excellent question, how about you try to find out. People have given you some good ideas to do so
No:
Disconfirmation bias:When people are faced with evidence for and against their beliefs, they will be more likely to accept the evidence that supports their beliefs with little scrutiny yet criticize and reject that which disconfirms their beliefs.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/disconfirmation_bias.htm
Which ironically is exactly what YOU are doing.
You are also making up definitions.
Last edited:
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
BINGO! You don't know now. And until you do, you have no reason to believe that what you do is more than anyone else could do.
Would you like to now start considering tests which can demonstate you are different than anyone else?
When has anyone recommended ignoring hits of any kind?
Kindly cite anyone here doing so or retract your lie.
There is no "disconfirmation bias," there is only the scientific method.
Who has tried to rush you?
Do you really think that such demonstrably false accusations enhance your credibility?
You can't know. That's the point.
Therefore, you need a controlled test to reliably evaluate the number of hits and misses.
...
there is a name for your argument ,which is:
disconfirmation bias ! : ignoring self-evident hits and only counting non self-evident misses.
PS:again,be patient,even if i respond after a 2 weeks, i'll be still fulfilling my promises.why we need the rush !?
Disconfirmation bias?
Reason1, as Kariboo said, do some research first. You shot yourself in the foot with your last post.
Are you still planning to apply for the JREF Challenge?
reason1
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 275
Why do i need to ask anyone about why he/she was staring who may also lie about it ?!.
Again , there is only ONE type of staring.Trying to consciously simulate staring in the lab is NOT staring that happens in normal every day life.Moreover even the language dictionaries description of staring comply with my definitions (which also conforms with common sense), and that is because language dictionaries describe words that happen in normal ever day life.
OK ?
The two cases you've described are the same as i've also described in the following post :
It's impossible for any tester/observer to tell if i didn't detect a stare, they can only guess , and that is because misses are non self-evident .
Also guessing is NOT scientifically acceptable proof that there was a miss; the testers/observers cannot get inside the mind of the starer to see if he/she was actually staring as i describe it.
There is a rare possibility for non self-evident hit,which is when i reflex my face at someone and he/she doesn't reflex his/her face away, some people are bold and will just keep staring.
Although in this particular case, testers/observers will not count a hit , also they can't say for sure that this is a miss.
Although irrelevant ,not all reflexes are mentioned in this list.What about the unbearable heat reflex or the immediate danger reflex ?.Why not add detected-starer reflex ?!
Again what about the synchronous reflexes ?
Where are the good ideas/tests that will make me detect misses of staring as i describe it.
Why does it matter if I'm inventing/imposing definitions that in effect conform with my claim and common sense !?.
Also although no one cares about Changing Minds Org. definitions , their disconfirmation bias definition doesn't even sound as scientific as mine !
You are saying, it's ironic that I'm biased towards my confirmation and in the same time towards my disconfirmation, sounds contradictory !
You did !
...notice the following in bold font:science is a methodology not a position !.
That is why I'm telling you to change your position and accept my synchronous reflexes as a scientific method that will make my protocol self-evident.Also you shouldn't be biased towards (confirming) NON self-evident misses which are irrelevant because the odds are against that a self-evident test would happen 100 times under random but controlled settings.
man...the topic is flooded with repeated questions (most of them are already answered)!!.
Also I'm falsely accused of skipping/ignoring those questions while i said from the beginning:
Last edited:
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
I like UncaYimmy's protocol, as well. Here are a couple of variations that might make the test more fool-proof.
First, rather than give reason1 and the other "stare-ees" funny hats, I would put them in clearly numbered chairs. Then, the starer is told that one of them has $5 and if they can concentrate on which one it is, they can win that money. I don't know how selecting their choice with the viewfinder of a camera is any more effective than announcing their choice to a volunteer. I understand the viewfinder choice is silent, which brings me to another variation.
The stare-ees should be located in the courtyard of a building. Now, the starers can appear in any window of that building silently. There could even be that two-way (or is it one-way?) mirror film on a select number of windows. Then, reason1's reflexive move would be to spin around and look at a reflective window. He will either not spin around, because the starer selected someone other than him, or he will spin around and look directly at the window with the starer. That's a test he should easily and unambiguously pass with his powers.
Also, there could be a light in front of the stare-ees that would light up when the starer was in place. Although the light would give an advantage to reason1 because he would know someone was staring at something when the light came on.
Finally, the singing frog did indeed sing "Hello, my baby." It's a song called "Ragtime Gal." He also sang "The Michigan Rag" which was written for the cartoon, but "Ragtime Gal" was and still is a classic.
Ward
First, rather than give reason1 and the other "stare-ees" funny hats, I would put them in clearly numbered chairs. Then, the starer is told that one of them has $5 and if they can concentrate on which one it is, they can win that money. I don't know how selecting their choice with the viewfinder of a camera is any more effective than announcing their choice to a volunteer. I understand the viewfinder choice is silent, which brings me to another variation.
The stare-ees should be located in the courtyard of a building. Now, the starers can appear in any window of that building silently. There could even be that two-way (or is it one-way?) mirror film on a select number of windows. Then, reason1's reflexive move would be to spin around and look at a reflective window. He will either not spin around, because the starer selected someone other than him, or he will spin around and look directly at the window with the starer. That's a test he should easily and unambiguously pass with his powers.
Also, there could be a light in front of the stare-ees that would light up when the starer was in place. Although the light would give an advantage to reason1 because he would know someone was staring at something when the light came on.
Finally, the singing frog did indeed sing "Hello, my baby." It's a song called "Ragtime Gal." He also sang "The Michigan Rag" which was written for the cartoon, but "Ragtime Gal" was and still is a classic.
Ward