Paranormal detection

[arthwollipot]

PS: i'm still not rejecting any protocols, but I prefer to discuss them in parallel with mine.

Your protocol is useless. You need to let go of it. Your protocol completely fails to control for either deliberate cheating or random noise. Several protocols have been suggested which do control for both. Pick one and let's do it.

 

[TSR]

But the physical world itself is infinite in size.

.
By what definition of "world"?
.

PS: i'm still not rejecting any protocols, but I prefer to discuss them in parallel with mine.

.
You have no viable protocol, as has been explained to you many times.
.

 

[Jackalgirl]

You say you're not rejecting other protocols, but you sure don't seem to be accepting them, either.

I answered your objections to a paintball sniper possibly cheating by explaining that, since the sniper is actually going to shoot you, he or she really can't cheat.

So, again, would you please take a look at my paintball sniper protocol and let me know if there are any remaining problems? Do you think that your powers would work under the conditions I described? If not, what specifically is/are the problem(s)?

 

[Rodibidably]

If not, what specifically is/are the problem(s)?

The problem with your protocol (and all of the others that have any degree of control) is that they remove the possibility of him winning by non-paranormal means...

Since his supposed "ability" (at least how he has described it) is obviously not a paranormal one, but an example of normal actions and reactions of people along with a healthy dose of confirmation bias, the only way it can be tested (and have the results come out favorably) is to keep the original idea where cheating and normal human nature will allow for a positive result.

 

[reason1]

TSR said "By what definition of "world"?".
I meant the universe.

Jackalgirl & Robert Oz:
The problem is that, you can snipe at something without even focusing your eyes on it, and this allows cheating , so how about if the starers are chosen randomly from a public place at the time of the test ?.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for topic

 

[Kariboo]

you can snipe at something without even focusing your eyes on it,

No you can't, you have to focus in order to aim. The important part is that someone is trying to shoot you. Which includes aiming and therefore shooting.

This is part of the protocol that Jackalgirl has written for you. What is the problem??

 

[fromdownunder]

TSR said "By what definition of "world"?".
I meant the universe.

Jackalgirl & Robert Oz:
The problem is that, you can snipe at something without even focusing your eyes on it, and this allows cheating , so how about if the starers are chosen randomly from a public place at the time of the test ?.

You want snipers to be chosen from a public place at random, then taken to the paintball range to conduct the test? What if they are like me, and can barely even hold a gun, much less point one in the right direction?

That does a fair bit of damage to the sniper protocol. And if you are simply trying to go back to the sitting on a bench in public, it has already been explained, probably 100 times, that this will not work.

So, we seem to be back where we started.

Norm

 

[reason1]

No you can't, you have to focus in order to aim. The important part is that someone is trying to shoot you. Which includes aiming and therefore shooting.

This is part of the protocol that Jackalgirl has written for you. What is the problem??

Note also that, looking at me for 1 second is not staring.
A cheater can then aim at my direction without focusing on me, and then shoot.We must ensure that the shooters don't know in anyway the actual purpose of the test.

 

[Robert Oz]

The problem is that, you can snipe at something without even focusing your eyes on it, and this allows cheating , so how about if the starers are chosen randomly from a public place at the time of the test ?

Does this mean you can't detect people who are short-sighted? If a person is looking at you, but their eyes are physically unable to focus on things that are far away, are you unable to detect them?

How do you know all of the people you have caught staring had perfect eyesight?

Okay, how about a scenario where an artist (chosen at random) has to sketch you based on the roll of a die. To sketch you realistically, an artist would have to focus on you. It would be impossible to sketch you realistically without focussing and actively staring. What do you think of this protocol, reason1?

Now we have:

1. Active staring;
2. Random choice of artist;
3. Forced focus on the subject being tested;
4. Self-evident result.

By the way reason1, I find it odd that you didn't mention the focussing issue until now, since it would have affected every single protocol suggested so far. It's almost as if you are desperately searching for reasons to reject protocols.

 

[Drs_Res]

You know what? If I was out in public and walking by reason1 (or anyone else for that matter) and I was looking in his general direction and he suddenly turned around and looked in my general direction, I would probably turn around and look in the direction he was looking.

Why? Because people are sometimes oblivious to their surroundings and I think my first reaction would be: "What did he notice that I didn't? Something dangerous perhaps?"

I think I may have to try my own little uncontrolled experiment tomorrow.
If I do, I'll post back with results.

 

[Jackalgirl]

The problem is that, you can snipe at something without even focusing your eyes on it, and this allows cheating , so how about if the starers are chosen randomly from a public place at the time of the test ?

You have got to be kidding me.

This makes you totally useless as a sniper detection system and therefore you'd be of no interest whatsoever to the military.

Your protocol is completely unsuitable and no amount of talking about it will make it suitable. Since that is the only protocol you're willing to talk about, I terminate my interest in this case.

 

[Robert Oz]

Note also that, looking at me for 1 second is not staring.
A cheater can then aim at my direction without focusing on me, and then shoot.We must ensure that the shooters don't know in anyway the actual purpose of the test.

My sketching protocol eliminates this problem. Even if the artist knows the purpose of the test, he/she needs to actively stare at you to draw you. Believe me, I draw from time to time as a hobby and there is no way someone can draw you without actively staring and focussing on you quite intensely.

What do you think? Can you still see a way to cheat here?

Note: I realise the artist has to turn away to look at the sketchpad from time to time, but I assure you the artist will be looking directly at you for more than enough time to constitute an active stare multiple times during the sketch. And to compensate, you can have five or ten minutes to make your decision about which artist is drawing you.

 

[reason1]

Does this mean you can't detect people who are short-sighted? If a person is looking at you, but their eyes are physically unable to focus on things that are far away, are you unable to detect them?

How do you know all of the people you have caught staring had perfect eyesight?

By the way reason1, I find it odd that you didn't mention the focussing issue until now, since it would have affected every single protocol suggested so far. It's almost as if you are desperately searching for reasons to reject protocols.

But no one will stare at something without focusing on it, and if that person has eyesight problems, at least he/she will try to focus. Also I'm not rejecting protocols, I'm just trying to eliminate any possibility of cheating.

You know what? If I was out in public and walking by reason1 (or anyone else for that matter) and I was looking in his general direction and he suddenly turned around and looked in my general direction, I would probably turn around and look in the direction he was looking.

Why? Because people are sometimes oblivious to their surroundings and I think my first reaction would be: "What did he notice that I didn't? Something dangerous perhaps?"

I think I may have to try my own little uncontrolled experiment tomorrow.
If I do, I'll post back with results.

Hi, thanks, you're reading my mind, I was about to suggest this for everyone. So how about everyone go in a public place and make reflexes at people, and then post the results ?.

news:
I'm a little busy, watch my signature for latest news.

 

[reason1]

My sketching protocol eliminates this problem. Even if the artist knows the purpose of the test, he/she needs to actively stare at you to draw you. Believe me, I draw from time to time as a hobby and there is no way someone can draw you without actively staring and focussing on you quite intensely.

What do you think? Can you still see a way to cheat here?

Note: I realise the artist has to turn away to look at the sketchpad from time to time, but I assure you the artist will be looking directly at you for more than enough time to constitute an active stare multiple times during the sketch. And to compensate, you can have five or ten minutes to make your decision about which artist is drawing you.

Hi Robert , let me think about this for a while.

You have got to be kidding me.

This makes you totally useless as a sniper detection system and therefore you'd be of no interest whatsoever to the military.

Hi, no, I'm talking about cheating, real snipers would never cheat.

Your protocol is completely unsuitable and no amount of talking about it will make it suitable. Since that is the only protocol you're willing to talk about, I terminate my interest in this case.

C'mon girl, you can't use the choice that I've made to be open-minded against me, can you ?, I can just say that my ability works only in public places, and spare me any explanations, or refuse any protocols before someone proves that my protocol is flawed. You know, no one until this moment has given any logical evidence that makes my protocol uncontrolled !.If you have one ,I invite you to post it.
And also while I'm talking about my protocol ,I'm also discussing the others !.

 

[Lrrr]

Note also that, looking at me for 1 second is not staring.
A cheater can then aim at my direction without focusing on me, and then shoot.We must ensure that the shooters don't know in anyway the actual purpose of the test.

Or perhaps the shooter could be a friend of *yours*. That way you can guarantee that the sniper is not cheating.

Protocols don't have to eliminate acquaintances of the person being tested, they just have to eliminate the possibility that such acquaintances do not create a successful test through non-paranormal means.

 

[nathan]

The problem is that, you can snipe at something without even focusing your eyes on it

And you know this because? Please post the evidence of a successful sniper shot you have accomplished without focussing your eyes on the target.

 

[Ashles]

Or perhaps the shooter could be a friend of *yours*. That way you can guarantee that the sniper is not cheating.

Protocols don't have to eliminate acquaintances of the person being tested, they just have to eliminate the possibility that such acquaintances do not create a successful test through non-paranormal means.

Am I right in thinking the latest proposal for this claim is to get a claimant to bring along a friend who he is requesting to shoot him in the head with a paintball gun?

I love the JREF. You never know where claims are going to end up.

 

[Robert Oz]

You know, no one until this moment has given any logical evidence that makes my protocol uncontrolled !.If you have one ,I invite you to post it.

Please stop making this ridiculous claim. Every time you ask people to provide logical evidence that makes your protocol uncontrolled, you are given multiple answers by multiple posters - all of them highlighting serious problems with your protocol.

You then wait several posts and make the same above claim.

To name just four pieces of logical evidence that make your protocol uncontrolled (and that have been raised many times in this thread):

1. Your protocol allows for cheating through the use of confederates;
2. Your protocol allows for confirmation bias;
3. Your protocol involves subjective judging; and
4. Your protocol involves far too many people - a number that would be impossible to keep track of.

Hi Robert , let me think about this for a while.

I eagerly await your response to my sketching protocol. As a reminder, it includes active staring, intense focus, random selection of the artist and self evident results.

It also:

1. Eliminates the possibility of cheating through the use of confederates;
2. Eliminates the possibility of confirmation bias affecting the results;
3. Does not involve subjective judging and is, therefore, self evident; and
4. Involves only a handful of people.

 

[steenkh]

I still think that it would be better to have the test persons trying to make out the text printed with small print on a piece of paper that is pinned on the back of reason1. I cannot imagine how it would be possible to read such text without focusing ...

 

[Pixel42]

I still think that it would be better to have the test persons trying to make out the text printed with small print on a piece of paper that is pinned on the back of reason1. I cannot imagine how it would be possible to read such text without focusing ...

I imagine reason1 will say that he can't detect people who are staring at the piece of paper rather than at him. Whilst once again failing to explain how he managed to eliminate the possibility that those he claims to have caught staring in the past weren't doing likewise (e.g. staring at his clothes rather than at him).