Paranormal detection

[GzuzKryzt]

No. YOU said you could have easily been lying about those two requirement. I'm simply wondering what purpose such a lie would serve, and why you would say you could have been lying if you weren't.

Perhaps for the same reason he posted this.

 

[blutoski]

One thing that I'll mention here is that when Rupert Sheldrake did this experiment, part of the protocol was immediate feedback on whether a given guess was wrong or right. I never saw the point of this, but apparently he didn't get positive results unless this happened. My protocol does not include this feedback-per-guess, not because I want to skew the results, but because the immediate feedback seems to serve no purpose in the test. However, I am open to discussion on this subject.

This is part of my main complaint about Sheldrake: the feedback step in the protocol was not for all attempts. His intention was to see if targets who received feedback outperformed those who did not. ie: test hypothesis "feedback enhances learning of this skill"

The reason I didn't like this is that he's running multiple hypotheses in one experiment, but not altering the statistics to reflect this. To put this another way, each hypothesis really has a much smaller sample size than the overall experiment, and the more hypotheses you're testing, the more likely one will come up positive through plain chance. Sheldrake attempts to compensate for this with regression analysis, but it's not the right way to do it.

My suggestion is always: test one hypothesis at a time.

 

[Kariboo]

Hi Cuddles,
not that i want to argue with the mods, but I'm curious :
why my thread is less eligible for the MDC section than the "new experience" thread or "Greeting MD Claimants" thread?
Why move my thread now ? Is it because of my new avatar or signature ?
I think my thread is focused on the protocols for the MDC
OK...but that what I've actually said "I'm applying for the MDC"

still ,not arguing, but i could have also lied about that.
also i said that i'm contacting magazines/academics

as i said, i could have easily lied about that !!

Are you actually blaming me because i was honest and said the truth ?!!!!

I don't mind at all my thread being moved anywhere in the forum but as i said i'm curious about it.
also some threads there are not even about whether being applicant or not.

and mine is not ?!

So since the thread has moved you spent 6 post on questioning why and claiming that you could have lied about your eligibility for the MDC.

For one, it;s kinda hard to lie about having a media presence and affidavits, since you would have to attach them to your claim and they would be public record.

How about you concentrate on finding out what your claim is and putting it in testable form. I.e. what can you do, under which circumstances and what are your success rates. You would certainly need that in order to apply.

Please do not include made up definitions of words or science.

 

[Pantaz]

Progress?

In the flurry of posts shortly after I asked, it seems my question was overlooked:

Made any progress on the required academic and media recognition?
Have you contacted JREF (challenge@randi.org) regarding your claim?

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, i want your objective opinion about this confirmation bias argument.
Maybe this will make some people see things differently from prejudiced point of view

I'm down with the flu, but I'll give it a shot.

Everybody - you, me, James Randi - is at risk for confirmation bias. It is very well known in scientific circles that it can be a big problem. Many an alleged "scientific" study has been ripped apart by fellow scientists because of confirmation bias. It is so prevalent that standard steps are taken to eliminate the chances of confirmation bias skewing the results (blinding, randomization).

Anybody who says they don't suffer from confirmation bias is either lying or naive. This is why the protocol is so important. Done properly, it can virtually eliminate confirmation bias as a factor. The human element is kept in check by the protocol itself. A properly designed study defines the key elements in advance. The execution of the study simply involves following the protocol. Given the protocol and the resulting data, everyone should draw the same conclusions.

You say that you have had "thousands" of experiences which have led you to believe you have an ability. Where's the protocol? Where's your data? There isn't any. Since you did not factor in confirmation bias, your conclusions are immediately suspect. It doesn't mean that they are wrong. It just means they are unreliable.

It would be very different if you had said, "Two years ago I began a systematic study of my experiences. I wrote up this set of rules, which you can read here. I followed the rules exactly as written. I also kept a journal, which I copied into this spreadsheet you can read here. Based on these rules and this data, I conclude that I have this ability."

You didn't do that.

Your anecdotal experiences may be more than sufficient to convince yourself. However, it is nowhere near being adequate enough to convince those familiar with how these types of studies should be conducted. There's nothing you can do or say that is going to change our analysis of what has transpired to date. We are, of course, willing to help you devise a future protocol that we will find acceptable.

It's not a personal thing. I'm not saying you reached an incorrect conclusion about your ability. You may actually have this ability, but you cannot know this without a proper study. More importantly, nobody else can know it without you following the proper procedures and keeping accurate records.

To put it another way, suppose I wanted to find out whether I had this ability or not. What steps should I take? How many trials under what conditions? What number of successes would indicate I had this ability? And what if I was a known fraud or trickster? What rules should be in place to keep me from faking the results one way or another?

When you can answer those questions, you will have the groundwork for a protocol. The many experienced people following this thread will also offer their suggestions. When it's complete, we will have something we can use to test anyone we want. It's not about you. It's about the science.

 

[Robert Oz]

reason1,

None of the experiences you have had describe a paranormal ability. All of your experiences seem to be ordinary, normal experiences. I am happy to give very probable ordinary explanations for any experiences you care to share.

For example:

to all of you who are interested:
I recall detecting when people stared at me from above while waring a cap three times,one from the second floor and 2 from fifth floor

A person is looking over a balcony as many people often do. From the ground floor you suddenly turn and look up. As you turn your head the person on the balcony zeroes in on you for a brief moment, before turning away, because he doesn't want you thinking he was watching you.

The reason you suddenly looked up? You often look around you as most people do. You pay no attention to the fact that you often look around until you have experiences like the one mentioned above. When you do have such experiences you interpret your actions as reflex. They are not reflex at all.

Conclusion: Confirmation bias.

Question: How do you know it didn't happen this way? How would you protect against something like this happening in your test protocol?

 

[Lrrr]

reason1,

None of the experiences you have had describe a paranormal ability. All of your experiences seem to be ordinary, normal experiences. I am happy to give very probable ordinary explanations for any experiences you care to share.

For example:




A person is looking over a balcony as many people often do. From the ground floor you suddenly turn and look up. As you turn your head the person on the balcony zeroes in on you for a brief moment, before turning away, because he doesn't want you thinking he was watching you.

The reason you suddenly looked up? You often look around you as most people do. You pay no attention to the fact that you often look around until you have experiences like the one mentioned above. When you do have such experiences you interpret your actions as reflex. They are not reflex at all.

Conclusion: Confirmation bias.

Question: How do you know it didn't happen this way? How would you protect against something like this happening in your test protocol?

I asked the same question and got a completely unsatisfactory answer. Something along the lines of "that's just a reflex, but I *know* they were staring at me so that is paranormal".

 

[Robert Oz]

I asked the same question and got a completely unsatisfactory answer. Something along the lines of "that's just a reflex, but I *know* they were staring at me so that is paranormal".

And it is up to reason1 to develop a test protocol that can distinguish between the two. reason1's test must be able to tell the difference between the above explanation and something paranormal.

And it can't involve a million cameras keeping track of every face in a crowd of people from all angles to see who flinches.

Further, "I know" is not evidence of an ability. There are people who "know" they are Napolean Bonaparte, it doesn't make it so. reason1 must give us objective reasons how he knows his experiences are any different from what I have outlined above.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm sorry. I understand that people wanna keep an open minded, polite approach about these applicants, but isn't it painfully obvious at this point that the man neither has a paranormal ability nor any serious intentions of developing a protocol?

(And I'm very interested in being proven wrong at any time... but won't be holding my breath)

 

[reason1]

To put it another way, suppose I wanted to find out whether I had this ability or not. What steps should I take? How many trials under what conditions? What number of successes would indicate I had this ability? And what if I was a known fraud or trickster? What rules should be in place to keep me from faking the results one way or another?

When you can answer those questions, you will have the groundwork for a protocol. The many experienced people following this thread will also offer their suggestions. When it's complete, we will have something we can use to test anyone we want. It's not about you. It's about the science.

Hi UncaYimmy, i think there is some misunderstanding here.I didn't mean that i want your objective opinion about my previous experiences (of course you can't do that),but about my suggested protocol.
so let us give it another try:
what's is your objective thoughts about the following argument regarding confirmation bias ? (if you want to ,you may also put my protocol aside for the sake of the discussion)

There is no confirmation bias in the outcome results of experiments that involve self-evident hits and non self-evident misses, because the odds are against that the results shows 20 hits, while those experiments were done under random but scientifically acceptable controlled settings.

take your time, OK ?....don't rush the response.

reason1,

None of the experiences you have had describe a paranormal ability. All of your experiences seem to be ordinary, normal experiences. I am happy to give very probable ordinary explanations for any experiences you care to share.

For example:

A person is looking over a balcony as many people often do. From the ground floor you suddenly turn and look up. As you turn your head the person on the balcony zeroes in on you for a brief moment, before turning away, because he doesn't want you thinking he was watching you.

The reason you suddenly looked up? You often look around you as most people do. You pay no attention to the fact that you often look around until you have experiences like the one mentioned above. When you do have such experiences you interpret your actions as reflex. They are not reflex at all.

Conclusion: Confirmation bias.

Question: How do you know it didn't happen this way? How would you protect against something like this happening in your test protocol?

I asked the same question and got a completely unsatisfactory answer. Something along the lines of "that's just a reflex, but I *know* they were staring at me so that is paranormal".

I'm sorry. I understand that people wanna keep an open minded, polite approach about these applicants, but isn't it painfully obvious at this point that the man neither has a paranormal ability nor any serious intentions of developing a protocol?

Hi ,
well...As i have told you before that you can come up with many explanations for any paranormal claim, i myself can come up with some, even James Randi himself does it, but again this is off-topic.
you may say "why" ? ...i say "because it's contradicting the whole idea of the MDC".
It's like saying "what's wrong with those JREF stupid fools reserving 1 million dollars for paranormal claim that we all know for sure that it has normal explanations"
Got it ?!!!!!!!!!!
Also i saw some of James Randi's videos exposing false claims , but still challenging those people to to send application for his challenge (sometimes sarcastically begging) and even more, he offers all the hi-tech equipments for free !!!!!!!!.
OK ?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(And I'm very interested in being proven wrong at any time... but won't be holding my breath)

Hi Ron...thanks for the compliment..i really appreciate it.

With what?

You have been repeatedly told that your unclear claim and protocol as it stands is untestable.

Do you imagine that the Randi and the JREF are less perspicacious than the forum members?

I think you will find the opposite is the case.

Do you think that they might not notice the massive holes in your claim and preliminary protocol and let you perform an untestable test?

Making up new definitions of words is not going to make your claim and test any more worthy.


If you continue to ignore the advice given in this thread and wish to spend the time, money and effort to register a MDC - That's up to you - It's your money.

If you do - Start a new thread - What's the big deal?


With each post you write, I become less and less convinced that an honest MDC is your intention. I think your motives are less than honest.

Hi H3LL, as you are the most irritated here because of my arguments, i shall respond to you :
there is a saying in my country that states:
"If you just keep repeatedly saying that something is not true, this will not make this thing actually become untrue"
The point is, you have to do more than this to disprove that thing.You must use logic and reasoning when stating your argument.
Hence, just repeatedly saying that my protocol is unclear,untestable, have massive holes without rational discussion is like saying i'm in denial about it because of my demon.
OK?????!!!!!!!!!

To other members here:
IMHO, further response to reason1 only serves his other purpose which I'm confident has nothing to do with the MDC and only other, more dishonest, plans. If you chose to respond please be mindful of how your responses may be used in the future. Thank you.

Now is the time to say "thank you very much" and leave us

Also "leave us" doesn't sound like something a skeptic would ever say ,as you stated in the following post : "They have chosen to jump into the lion's den and should expect a few scratches."

The MDC is a challenge.

Not tea and biscuits with the vicar.

Respect is earned not given.

They have chosen to jump into the lion's den and should expect a few scratches.

The bright light of good evidence reveals all.

If they don't like it - they shouldn't be here.

Finally, when the day comes that who I show respect to and my actions are guided by fear from the likes of repugnant characters such as The Professor and his activities - Please shoot me - - - Twice.

It's like you are member of a religion cult who is insecure about his/her believes, so he/she uses others to gain more security, sometimes even by trying to make a gang to harass/bully anyone that contradicts his/her believes.
OK?????!!!!!!!!!
no offense OK ??!!!!

I still don't know why some people are irritated/offended by logical/skeptical arguments regarding my claim.I'm also a skeptic about every other (sometimes) pathetic claims.And i believe that there is a scientific explanation (not necessarily by current science) for every thing in this world.

regarding my definitions :
As the JREF puts the burden of designing protocols on the claimants, i don't think they would even mind me inventing new language to state my protocol as long as i can logically make them understand it and agree with it.

regarding me being dishonest :
H3LL, can you please tell me how do you think i'm so ??!!!!
If you can't, maybe i can give you some idea to think about it :
I'm a god and i want skeptics to worship me, not because of their ancestors fairy tales but for their skeptic believes.
This is pretty good dishonest plan ,but as i'm using the MDC as a mean to reach my goals, my claim is still applicable for the challenge.
OK?????!!!!!!!!!!!

No. YOU said you could have easily been lying about those two requirement. I'm simply wondering what purpose such a lie would serve, and why you would say you could have been lying if you weren't.

You don't get my logical point, which is:
i have a normal ability to lie that i share with all human race.
also have the ability to choose whether to lie or not.
Since I've chosen not to lie , this means i was honest.
Hence ,you shouldn't punish me for that, and in the same time, if any other claimant did choose to lie, he wouldn't have been punished at all !.

You lasted 7 pages without applying. That's a feat in itself. Who knows how many more pages you'll get when you DO apply?

Ward

Hi Ward, and thanks for your objective discussions but :
it's not my fault that my thread quickly reached 7 pages because it's flooded with questions (most of I've already answered), or flooded with off-topic posts and harassment:

Hi GzuzKryzt,
since you are the most demanding here i shall answer your questions first :

Man....I've already answered these questions in my argument in page 2 !.

And UncaYimmy also kindly and objectively stated that in the following 2 post:

Longer way than what? Asking him the same three questions every few hours like you did yesterday?

He has already defined "staring" as he sees it (pardon the pun) - more than once in my opinion.

Honestly, what more do you want from the guy?

Also maybe it got long because i'm more engaging than any other claimant that doesn't even seem to understand the questions.
It's unfair for me to be punished for that, don't you think ?!

You do know the JREF forum is in some way connected with the JREF don't you?

Exactly,thank you, this is why i'm saying that shouldn't happen in JREF forum !!.

to Jackalgirl :
good work girl ,although you threw some obstacles ,thanks of your open-minded objectivity.

to Pantaz :

I've sent my question to the Challenge email and I'm waiting for their answer
more to come....

regarding media profile and an academic affidavit:
yes I'm contacting magazines and academics

PS:i spend alot of effort making my posts,so please spare me the very padanic stuff, it's a matter of LOGIC not spelling/grammar.

 

[reason1]

, and since the discussion is mostly focused on more general issues, the thread has been moved to a more appropriate sub-forum.

Reason1, if you later decide to actually apply for the challenge, you may start a new thread in the Million Dollar Challenge section to focus specifically on your application. Please use this thread for general discussion of your claims.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

"general issues"
Sorry mod. Cuddles ,i disagree,
my thread is focused on designing a protocol for my claim and also on eliminating as much problems as possible that may appear when i'm negotiating the final protocol with the JREF.
I'm not here for testing my ability,but applying for the challenge, and i have only one chance and one year to be tested for the MDC !!
I don't deserve to be here while i was from the beginning honest , concise , straightforward ,engaging in logical discussion regarding my protocol for MDC
I think i'm more eligible than any other claimant who their thread is still at the appropriate section.
I've spent exhausting and mind consuming hours preparing my responses to questions about my protocol and it's unfair put my thread in this inappropriate section and make me equal to any pathetic liar who are just seeking attention.
although at the moment I don't need any fake academic report or any attention by media who are obsessed with pathetic paranormal claims,i think i'll be getting more credible attention than any other claimant in the history of the challenge MDC.
as no one here can tell the future, no one can say that i won't apply or get the required media/academic attention !!!!.
Also i had enough off-topic (general skepticism) posts even at MDC sub-forum and i don't want to waste my only chance replying to spam/posts here about that i'm delusional.

Before i opened my thread at the MDC sub-forum ,i did open one here for discussing general aspects of my ability and i even opened a poll for members to freely say their opinions .
But ironically Admin. Darat closed it because of off-topic posts about my protocol that are not related to general skepticism sub forum as he stated by the following post :

Since this is apparently a MDC topic, I'm closing this thread - the discussion about the apparent MDC application can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137126

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

sorry mod. Cuddles, you made a wrong decision that is contradicting to admin. Darat decision.
so please put my thread back in it's appropriate section.

please no one speaks on behalf of any mod./admin , they can speak for themselves well !!!

 

[nathan]

Wall of text?
* check

and so it goes on ...

 

[fromdownunder]

"so please put my thread back in it's appropriate section.

I personally don't think that it is funny wnough for the humour section.

Norm

 

[reason1]

Wall of text?
* check

and so it goes on ...

Hi nathan ,you have been harassing me about not responding ,and now you don't like it ?!!!!!!!!!
you so hard to please !!!

[1]continually posting 'I'm not ignoring you' and then continuing to evade the questions is ignoring the issues.

reason1, you are becoming less and less distinguishable from vision from feeling. quit posting excuses about why you've not responded and promises to respond at some future point. Instead, respond in a meaningful way. I think you've used up the default credibility a new arrival has -- you need to earn that back if you want to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, if all you want is to say 'look at me, I'm special, me me me!', twitter is available elsewhere.

I fully expect you to respond to this with some excuse about you're preparing some full response. That, of course, only digs your hole deeper.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I think Darat believed that reason1 was applying for the MDC which is why the thread was moved to the MDC sub-forum. When it became clear that reason1 was not even close to applying, Cuddles wisely moved it back to the appropriate sub-forum.

The MDC sub-forum is for applicants, not claimants.

Ward

 

[reason1]

Hi nathan again, here is why you have been harassing me.

 

[reason1]

I think Darat believed that reason1 was applying for the MDC which is why the thread was moved to the MDC sub-forum. When it became clear that reason1 was not even close to applying, Cuddles wisely moved it back to the appropriate sub-forum.

The MDC sub-forum is for applicants, not claimants.

Ward

I don't think so notice the following :

Since this is apparently a MDC topic

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[wardenclyffe]

Um, exactly. Darat did believe it was an MDC topic (i.e. you were applying for the MDC). When it turned out that he was mistaken, Cuddles took care of it.

Ward

 

[reason1]

Um, exactly. Darat did believe it was an MDC topic (i.e. you were applying for the MDC). When it turned out that he was mistaken, Cuddles took care of it.

Ward

Hi , as i said please, don't speak on behalf Admin. Darat or mod. Cuddles
they can speak for themselves very well

 

[wardenclyffe]

They certainly can, and I don't hear Darat complaining about what Cuddles did.

Ward