Please help me parse these patents

[avataress]

It helps to use the quote button when replying, so people know what you're replying to.

As far as the statistics, the only way to assess whether something is fishy is to know what the expected percent of success is.

If paranormal things are real, the success rate should be close to 100%.

How so? Is it a real psychological FACT that people have a propensity to fear the dark? But there will be some people, who knows how many, who will admit fearing the dark, and some who don't, and I'm sure nowhere near close to 100%! That doesn't mean that fear of the dark doesn't exist or is not real.

If paranormal things aren't real and the results are based on chance, the expected success would be about 1:1000, since that's usually the odds required for the preliminary test, though of course with some things there aren't odds, like the lady who said she could make people pee. She either could or she couldn't. (She couldn't.) But other things, like dowsers choosing which bucket contains water correctly for X number of tries are nicely amenable to odds.

So with 1:1000 odds, the expected success rate means about 1 out of 1000 applicants would pass the first test by chance alone. With only a few hundred applicants (I don't know the actual number but surely nowhere near a thousand yet), there wouldn't be any expectation of a pass by chance alone, unless the applicant's paranormal powers were real.

I think I understand what you're saying although I'm not sure. If by chance alone 1 in 1000 should have passed at least the preliminary test, that seems accurate but how did you come up with the determination that the odds were 1 in 1000 if it is only chance? Even the odds to pick any exact three digit number combinations with the numbers 0 through 9, e.g., 123, 325, 456, etc. in that order as in the Pick 3 lotteries is 1 in 1000 meaning, I suppose, although I'm not sure, that there are 1,000 exact number combinations between 000 and 999. The odds are 1 in 168 for three number combinations in ANY order, e.g., 123, 321, 231, etc. I don't really know what the ramifications of those statistics are.

But isn't it a bit different with the paranormal challenge applicants because the situation is not as numerically precise as it is in the lottery, or so it seems to me, IF it's happening purely by chance, which in the paranormal challenge, it definitely is NOT! People's (the judges' of the challenge) perceptions and judgments are at play, not mere chance as in tossing a coin! How do those numbers statistically prove that the paranormal doesn't exist? Even in physics this affects the statistical outcome of things, although I don't know all about it, but have a smattering. A professional actuary or statistician would probably know, which is why I originally asked for one in my beginning thread here.

quote: If paranormal things are real, the success rate should be close to 100%.

My response: How so? Is it a real psychological FACT that people have a propensity to fear the dark? But there will be some people, who knows how many, who will admit fearing the dark, and some who don't, and I'm sure nowhere near close to 100%! That doesn't mean that fear of the dark doesn't exist or is not real.


My challenge has something to do with that, which is why I asked for the services of a professional statistician. Did you choose those odds are right because there were hundreds of applicants? Does anyone know how many hundreds exactly? And did all the claims have the same odds?

In any case, the paranormal challenge committee states in its formal application instructions that I have downloaded and printed out that if one passes the challenge all the way to the end, they will pay the $1 million, which again, I don't believe they will agree that anyone has passed (!), BUT they state, that does not mean that they are admitting that the paranormal exists! Sigh! Why, then, would they pay the $1 million? That's what the payment is supposed to be for scientific proof of--that the paranormal exists! Sounds like a Catch-22 to me!

 

[ben m]

You're asking for someone to build and test these?

3951134 is, I repeat, aiming a microwave beam at someone's head and heating it up. This is a terrible idea. I can guarantee that you will not find a professional, licensed individual who is willing to do this, not for any price. Why? Because, no matter what waivers you think you've signed, you could sue them into oblivion if you got hurt.

Can I ask: Why do you care about this specific patent? It looks like the existence of the effect is uncontroversial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect
Is it important for you to hear what is sounds like for yourself? Are you trying to learn something specific about it?

Re: 5507291, seriously, go to Home Depot and buy a laser rangefinder. Aim it at someone's chest and you'll be measuring the motion of their chest wall. Buy a camera, aim it at their face, zoom in, and you'll be able to measure their pupil size. There, you're doing the easy part of the patent. (They patent the *idea* of also measuring pulse rate and blood pressure, and this is clearly possible but that doesn't mean it's easy to make it work.)

Can I ask: who cares? Are you skeptical of the idea that your respiration rate can be measured remotely, and need proof? Why?

The brain wave one, eh, it sounds like baloney. First off, MRI machines are already giant radio-transmitter/receiver sets aimed at your head, with lots of power at similar frequencies to those seen in these patents. No thought transmittance and no weird signals seen AFAIK.

Also, brain tissue does NOT have the nonlinear mixing effect that the patent relies on for its signal generation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20607742 Notice that that is an actual refereed experimental result, not a "mail the USPTO some ideas and a check".

 

[avataress]

The reason why ALL of them failed is simple: So far, none of the paranormal claims have been real. That, of course, is the whole point of the challenge. Trying to talk in terms of "statistics" is the wrong way to think about it.

Imagine if there were a group of people who claimed they could jump, unassisted, over a mile in the air. Would you think it was "statistically fishy" that every single one of them ever tested, failed to actually jump that high? No? Well, the sorts of paranormal claims that have been made (so far, at least) are in this sort of category. So improbable as to be safely regarded as impossible. And so far, we've been right about that.


Jim, I'm not too sure about the use of the quote button. I don't know how to quote some in between and leave the rest. Please enlighten me.





Okay, here you have to be a bit careful with your terminology. I actually work in the patent industry, and in patents "patent claims" are specific legal passages. The meaning of the term "claim" as used in patents is much narrower than in colloquial use. It's more like a land claim: a specific legal definition of exactly what you think you have invented, that you want to be protected by the patent. If you look at the end of the US patents, you'll see a section usually set off with a header similar to "What is claimed is:" that contains these definitions. As I explained above, it is these patent claims which must be understood, if you want to know what has actually been patented.

The run-of-the-mill claims made in the description are subject to far less stringent standards than the patent claims. I could show you patents which describe perpetual motion machines, but which have patent claims written so as to avoid actually staking a legal claim to a perpetual motion device, as such are well known to be physically impossible. This process of "over-describing and under-claiming" is so prevalent in patents related to questionable technologies like this that it was a central part of a talk I gave at The Amazing Meeting 5 on how people "patent perpetual motion".

Jim, I'm not too sure about the use of the quote button. I don't know how to quote some in between and leave the rest. Please enlighten me.


Be that as it may, I understand very well about the fact that's what's legal is not always moral or just or necessarily fair, etc. I am not a lawyer, however, I have won in court, and/or settled several cases over the past ten or so years WITHOUT AID OF A LAWYERS (!!!!! all of the ones I contacted having sworn up and down that they were not capable of winning my cases, in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF LAWYER I CONTACTED OR WHAT KIND OF CASE IT WAS! I didn't keep all the lawyers' refusals, and I COULDN'T have kept some of them because they were oral by telephone; however, I won a case against McDonald's (Yes, THAT McDonald's!) in Queens County, NY State Small Claims Court in 2006 which I started because I found a foreign object in my food which I almost ate! The docket number of that case is QSC 2773/06. If you can't find it, I'd be more than happy to fax you a copy of the judgement which I still have. I also am very stable in most areas of my life (I've been living in my apartment for 23 years!) and I keep very good records. I will also fax you some other settlements I got last year, one from a slip and fall in front of Taco Bell and one from Walgreen's for having been writing my prescriptions wrong for years although I was not harmed by that because I knew how much to take. I negotiated both of those settlements WITHOUT HAVING TO SET FOOT IN A COURT ROOM by my negotiating skills/instincts, whichever term you prefer, alone! Finally, I'll fax you some copies of some letters of warm praise from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and her Chambers as well as the envelopes they came in with their postmarks of my wisdom, my coping tools, and my generosity. I have also done much to help various charities, including Safe Horizon shelters for abused women and children and The Algebra Project, which latter was formed to help underserved youth get skills to succeed in college, especially in math and science which was started by a MacArthur "Genius Award" Fellow, Robert "Bob" Parris Moses, by getting feminist calendars by Mother Tongue Ink called, "We'Moon" to the former twice, once in 2002 and once in 2013. and 200 copies of the inspirational book, "Rules of the Red Rubber Ball," by Kevin Carroll to the latter. It would be worth my hide to fake such things! I can and WILL prove the vast majority of them to anyone who enquires! Finally, in this vein, I scored in the 99th percentile in IQ on MENSA's home practice test in 2009, higher than which one can't score, although one can get a higher raw score than I got the meaning of which I don't know and can prove that too! They invited me to take the test and join, but I thought it would be way too much trouble to travel to the testing site and the rewards don't seem that good for membership there, which at the risk of seeming to falsely flatter, I see membership at this forum to be a much better deal!)


Having said all that, I do see that some of the claims of applicants were downright, dare I say it, frivolous, at best?! Like the lady who said that she could make (was it men only?) pee or urinate? I don't understand why the committee even entertained such a claim!

Also, having said THAT, statistics IS paramount in the claim I intend to apply with! Of that much I am 100% sure! I have not said yet exactly or even remotely (pun intended!) what my claim will be on this particular forum, and I understand from the moderator of the correct forum that this particular forum is not the place to do so. So, I will retain a bit of my mystery about my claim for the time being in order to hopefully raise your anticipation of hearing of it! Ciao!

 

[Loss Leader]

But isn't it a bit different with the paranormal challenge applicants because the situation is not as numerically precise as it is in the lottery, or so it seems to me, IF it's happening purely by chance, which in the paranormal challenge, it definitely is NOT! People's (the judges' of the challenge) perceptions and judgments are at play, not mere chance as in tossing a coin!

You really should read through some of the challenge threads that people have linked to and watch some of the videos of challenge tests that have been put up. You'll see that the JREF and other skeptical organizations work very hard to remove any subjective perception or judgment from the tests. Something either happens or it doesn't. There is no subjective interpretation allowed. That way, both parties can agree that a test has either been passed or failed.

How do those numbers statistically prove that the paranormal doesn't exist?

They don't and nobody claims otherwise. The numbers prove that the paranormal has not yet been shown to exist under scientifically repeatable circumstances.

A professional actuary or statistician would probably know, which is why I originally asked for one in my beginning thread here.

I'm still trying to understand: What exactly is your statistics question?

 

[avataress]

There are some challenge application reports here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

It's not complete (VisionFromFeeling's preliminary challenge isn't there, for example) and won't be updated now that this forum isn't part of JREF.

Are you able to tell us what your paranormal ability is, avataress? If not in this thread, then perhaps in a thread in the General Skepticism and the Paranormal sub-forum.

Thank you for this intelligence, Agatha! It has been very helpful! I looked at the first contestant and you know, from things he asked in his protocol, like that the envelopes couldn't have bubble wrap (which seemed to mean anything through which he could not see!) that his claim sounded bogus or phony!

About my claim, I will look around on the link you gave me and see what's there and after that, I MAY place my claim there. Remember, however, that I must still obtain a letter from a U.S. government or U.S. accredited college or university (preferably) statistician or actuary to say in a letter that s/he thinks I have a valid claim before I can submit my claim. Until then, I think I'll remain a bit cagey about revealing it because people here already have gotten some mistaken ideas about my first questions about the patents. But people usually tend to misunderstand what I say although I think I am speaking in the plainest English! However, if anyone would like to guess and s/he is correct, I'll let on ! Thanks again, my dear Agatha!


The photos are of me in 2013 and in 1977, respectively.

 

[avataress]

Many of the applicants are dowsers. The simplest explanation as to why dozens of dowsers failed the preliminary test is that dowsing doesn't work.

I could go into detail about how dowsing tests are structured, but I expect that such information is already written up somewhere. Does anyone know where to find such a summation?

Also, is there a brief summation of the woman who claimed "X-Ray vision"? That might be the perfect example of why a patented machine doing something is completely different from and person claiming the same power without using any apparatus whatsoever. The JREF Paranormal Challenge is not for machines that can do things that humans cannot. It is for people who insist that they can demonstrate under controlled conditions powers and abilities far beyond those of ordinary people. Powers and abilities that exceed anything that can be documented as a non-paranormal power or ability.

[Yes, there can be certain exceptions to my entirely unofficial explanation]

EDITED TO ADD:
I apologize, Avaratess, I misunderstood and concluded that the patents were related to your consideration of the JREF Paranormal Challenge.

I fully understand Ladewig. I don't know anything much about dowsing. It hasn't really worked for me either, with pendulums, that is.

Others seem to have misunderstood me, as well in some areas. The first sentence of my first post to this thread began with a statement that I KNOW that not all patents work as described. A good friend told me that about 20 years ago. However, at least two people here, who shall remain nameless, if I'm not mistaken, saw fit to tell me just that.

I'm not trying to be a nuisance, but you must pay careful attention and I would suggest reading twice before responding. I often think I have gleaned someone's words correctly, especially when typed into a computer, and I often find that I have absolutely misunderstood both the verbatim transcript, thinking that the person wrote some words that s/he absolutely (!) did NOT (!) replacing them with words of my own choosing or that I misunderstood the context of what someone said. I know that if it happens to me, who tends to be very careful of such things, as well as of PRECISELY how I am expressing myself, which is a skill my father taught me in early childhood in some very simple homey contexts, then I shouldn't be surprised when others do it with my communications.

Best regards, Ladewig and thank you for your honesty in admitting your mistake; I make the same ones sometimes, as I tried to express above! Cheers! !

 

[avataress]

Avatress, I'm not a professional mathematician. However, I don't see where you've posed any question for a statistician. What question exactly do you need a statistician's help for?

Loss Leader, It seems I'm generating some mystery and am perhaps being a bit vague, which I did not consciously intend to do at first, but I guess my subconscious had a hand in it because I'm rather enjoying it!

In any case, I apologize for not making myself clear. I really would like a professional statistician, mathematician or actuary to answer me PRIVATELY and I will tell that person what I would like his or her services for, although I have hinted further about that on other later posts and it does have to do with the accomplishment of submitting my claim, which again, I think I at least hinted at in my original thread. I'll look at it again. I think I'm allowed to ask for private messages.

The patent questions were for public consumption. Thanks for alerting/allowing me to clarify that! !

 

[ben m]

If paranormal things are real, the success rate should be close to 100%.

My response: How so?

Because JREF tested tasks that the applicants themselves said would be easy.

Can you imagine a world where something you found trivially easy, but other people scoffed at as unbelievable? Imagine you are the only color-vision person in a world of colorblind people.

• YOU: "I can tell whether a tomato is ripe by looking at it, that's easy! Ripe ones are red, unripe is green."
• COLORBLIND RANDI: "Nonsense! You're probably guessing. If I hide 10 ripe tomatoes among 90 unripe ones, can you pick them out? A guesser couldn't."
• YOU: "I could, no problem. All ten. This is easy."
• COLORBLIND RANDI: "I'll make it even easier. I'll put twelve ripe tomatoes in there, if you can find eight of them you win. You can inspect the tomatoes and the lighting beforehand. Anything you need."
• YOU: "I will win this 100%."
  [/QUOTE]
  
  You would then, of course, point to a bunch of red tomatoes and amaze the colorblind people. It *is* possible to identify easy tasks where, for a real ability, have a 100% success rate.
  
  That's what real-world Randi's paranormal tasks would be like ... if he were testing people with real skills. No one has ever dowsed for water, or read minds, or transmitted thoughts, or remote-diagnosed illnesses, anywhere near as well as they thought they could. No one has ever succeeded at one of these tasks that they designed themselves, tasks that they thought they would be 100% on.

 

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader, It seems I'm generating some mystery and am perhaps being a bit vague, which I did not consciously intend to do at first, but I guess my subconscious had a hand in it because I'm rather enjoying it!

That is your prerogative, but don't expect people here to humor you much longer.

 

[casebro]

Didn't JREF change the rules a couple years ago to require the claimant to have SOME fame?

Avataress, have you read the current specs?

 

[slyjoe]

...snip

About my claim, I will look around on the link you gave me and see what's there and after that, I MAY place my claim there. Remember, however, that I must still obtain a letter from a U.S. government or U.S. accredited college or university (preferably) statistician or actuary to say in a letter that s/he thinks I have a valid claim before I can submit my claim. Until then, I think I'll remain a bit cagey about revealing it because people here already have gotten some mistaken ideas about my first questions about the patents. But people usually tend to misunderstand what I say although I think I am speaking in the plainest English! However, if anyone would like to guess and s/he is correct, I'll let on ! Thanks again, my dear Agatha!
...snip

Why?

A statistician is not a statistician (see Jabba's threads). For example, would a statistician working for the US government in NOAA working on climate models be just as acceptable as one working in the census bureau? If not, why not.

You have not indicated what type of statistician you are looking for. And why US Government or US accredited university? British or other foreign statisticians are no good?

Or are you just attempting to get attention in this thread by being coy?

ETA: ben_m, excellent example.

 

[avataress]

You really should read through some of the challenge threads that people have linked to and watch some of the videos of challenge tests that have been put up. You'll see that the JREF and other skeptical organizations work very hard to remove any subjective perception or judgment from the tests. Something either happens or it doesn't. There is no subjective interpretation allowed. That way, both parties can agree that a test has either been passed or failed.





They don't and nobody claims otherwise. The numbers prove that the paranormal has not yet been shown to exist under scientifically repeatable circumstances.






I'm still trying to understand: What exactly is your statistics question?

Loss Leader, I see you're not a physicist. From what I understand, although many scientists think that there is NO subjective factor in some instances, there IS ALWAYS a subjective factor. I'm going to google, "The subjective factor in scientific experiments/proof" Will you do the same? Further, me looking at a video is subject to MY judgment and interpretation so for you to guarantee what I will judge as you and everyone else has, which I very well may judge as you say, seems to be more intuition than scientific veracity or objectivity.

There was a scientific experiment, where people were put in a group and shown two lines drawn parallel to each other one of which was plainly longer than the other and everyone except one individual was coached to say that both lines were exactly the same in length, although clearly they were not, and the person who was not privy to the conspiracy went right along and said both the lines were of the exact same measurement and, if I'm not mistaken, later admitted that he KNEW full well that both lines weren't the same, but felt peer pressure and did not want to be the odd man out, so to speak.

Further, this test has been done in an elevator where the "conspirators" all got on the elevator and faced the back of the elevator and the other people who got on did not know why the others were doing that, but did the same. "Herd instinct" as it's known is very powerful in humans as in other animals. This test was also done on me many years ago, I shamefully have to admit in a book review group in my neighborhood where everyone said very enthusiastically that they liked Maya Angelou's poems and I said that they were all just saying that because she is a popular poet. The next thing I knew, without any coaching from the gathered people a woman I think a seat away from me started coughing violently and I was alarmed and everyone sat there and did absolutely nothing, no pats on the back, no getting her water, nothing! And so, I shamefully admit, did I, although it may have been a matter of life and death!

Finally, in this vein, there was a study done with 6 month old babies to see if they seemed to know right from wrong by showing the 6-month-olds puppet shows in which there were characters who behaved obstructively and those who were helpful then showing the babies both the helpful and the obstructive puppets away from the stage and asking the babies to pick one and the babies invariably picked the helpful puppets. See it here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA


I sent this url to a Mohammedan acquaintance who told me out of the blue that he is better than those who don't believe in Allah because that makes him less subject to be tempted to do immoral things although he doesn't hate those who don't believe in his God (how very magnanimous of him; I suppose that means that he won't be bombing us heathens into oblivion!); this although he had just lied to me a moment before about that fact that he was burning incense in his store when I complained that it made it difficult for me to breathe, by saying that they had been burning it that morning and it was 7:30 pm at the time! This gentleman also somehow found that he was "too busy" to comment on the video.

But that's not the only point I wanted to make about that video: I couldn't even remember which puppet did what in the puppet shows!

Further, in this vein, and you did not answer all my points, perhaps, like fear of the dark being very real, but we can't judge how much so and in what quantity of the population except perhaps statistically by how many people seek treatment for it from psychological/psychiatric professionals. I looked at just one of the applicants for the test who said he could tell what photos were in envelopes without looking and he seemed fake just because of what he would not agree to, i.e., the envelopes being totally opague which would mean that he couldn't see through them! Just logical deduction would tell you that this guy's a fake which I combine with what I understand to be instinct or intuition to sniff out liars and other bogus claimants like the techniques used by famed lawyers, judges, and detectives, although my methods, as theirs, are not always foolproof but statistically significant!

Please read my further posts to learn what I want to find out statistically, from whom, for what purpose and by what methods as allowed by this forum. Thanks for your continued interest!

 

[Loss Leader]

<utter nonsense snipped>

Please read my further posts to learn what I want to find out statistically, from whom, for what purpose and by what methods as allowed by this forum.

No, I will not do so. You seem perfectly happy to go on and on about anything other than your claim. I am not interested.

 

[avataress]

That is your prerogative, but don't expect people here to humor you much longer.

I'm not sure what you mean by me "expecting people to humor me." Would you care to explain further? You've already said you're not a scientist. That is what I'm looking for!

Do you think you can help me find what/whom I'm looking for if I reveal my aims to you explicitly? If not, then I don't think I like what you're insinuating! I am very serious and I think I have proven that in other posts here.

If you are challenging me about truthfulness or seriousness of intent, please do so directly by so stating rather than making innuendos. And, if you please, don't speak for the others here; I think they are capable of doing that themselves. Thank you for your continued interest!

 

[avataress]

Didn't JREF change the rules a couple years ago to require the claimant to have SOME fame?

Avataress, have you read the current specs?

They changed the rules to make it so that the claimant DOES NOT need to have fame for her/his claim and they explained why they changed it! I have printed the application which requires the claimant to have one of three things, one of which I have asked for here to no avail yet, which is a U.S. government employed or U.S. accredited college or university employed (although those modes of employ are not absolutely required) statistician, actuary or mathematician, per my further posts. For your information, one of those things among which the claimant can choose to make a legitimate application IS fame about her or his claim! Please see here to download the application:

http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

Thanks for your continued interest! ! (Have YOU tried? No one has answered me that here yet!)

 

[Loss Leader]

Do you think you can help me find what/whom I'm looking for if I reveal my aims to you explicitly?

If you'd like to send me a private message, I will try to advise you further. I will not reveal anything you write to me in private.

 

[avataress]

Why?

A statistician is not a statistician (see Jabba's threads). For example, would a statistician working for the US government in NOAA working on climate models be just as acceptable as one working in the census bureau? If not, why not.

You have not indicated what type of statistician you are looking for. And why US Government or US accredited university? British or other foreign statisticians are no good?

Or are you just attempting to get attention in this thread by being coy?

ETA: ben_m, excellent example.

Hi, Slyjoe,

First of all, whether the posters here like it or not, and if they don't, I'm sorry they feel that way, which they are entitled to feel, it IS my prerogative to be coy. Most find it sexy. I don't see anything in the rules prohibiting being coy. One gentleman, who shall remain nameless, I believe, has become overly frustrated by this in my behavior and has opted out. So sorry.

However, please see the link I have posted earlier with the application to the $1 million paranormal challenge to download. That is what I am basing my request upon. If I'm not mistaken, it does ask that the government or accredited college or university be U.S. (are there accrediting bodies of colleges/universities elsewhere than in the U.S? If so, I am ignorant about such bodies although I would be interested to know if you'd like to so inform me!)

Finally, the application instructions do warn about getting experts to validate one's claim that are not exactly in one's field, as you question and they give an example of such in the application instructions. However, most paranormal claims don't have many professionals in that field in government or college/university jobs, I don't think; after all the paranormal according to the challenge has never even been adequately scientifically proven so how could there be professionals in that field to judge potentially valid claims?!

However, the field of my challenge, which, would you like to guess about?, I will tell anyone who guesses correctly even before I am ready to reveal my challenge, I don't think contains any living statisticians, actuaries, or mathematicians. However, numbers don't lie. I think if the professionals I am asking for are good at their jobs, they can prove or disprove what I'm claiming statistically after I fill them in on some symbols, etc.

Thanks for your continued interest! !

 

[IXP]

I doubt that there is anyone here on the forum who has tried a $1M challenge. Those who have tried go away in a snit.

Out of curiosity only, why do you want these 3 devices built if they are not related to your challenge in any way? It is odd to come to a forum and ask these two things in a single post if they are not related.

As for building the devices, I believe I could build the first one. But it would cost more like $100,000 (mostly for my time,) not $500, and I could not guarantee that it would work, nor could anyone else you might find.

IXP

 

[Giordano]

I think I understand what you're saying although I'm not sure. If by chance alone 1 in 1000 should have passed at least the preliminary test, that seems accurate but how did you come up with the determination that the odds were 1 in 1000 if it is only chance? Even the odds to pick any exact three digit number combinations with the numbers 0 through 9, e.g., 123, 325, 456, etc. in that order as in the Pick 3 lotteries is 1 in 1000 meaning, I suppose, although I'm not sure, that there are 1,000 exact number combinations between 000 and 999. The odds are 1 in 168 for three number combinations in ANY order, e.g., 123, 321, 231, etc. I don't really know what the ramifications of those statistics are.

But isn't it a bit different with the paranormal challenge applicants because the situation is not as numerically precise as it is in the lottery, or so it seems to me, IF it's happening purely by chance, which in the paranormal challenge, it definitely is NOT! People's (the judges' of the challenge) perceptions and judgments are at play, not mere chance as in tossing a coin! How do those numbers statistically prove that the paranormal doesn't exist? Even in physics this affects the statistical outcome of things, although I don't know all about it, but have a smattering. A professional actuary or statistician would probably know, which is why I originally asked for one in my beginning thread here.

quote: If paranormal things are real, the success rate should be close to 100%.

My response: How so? Is it a real psychological FACT that people have a propensity to fear the dark? But there will be some people, who knows how many, who will admit fearing the dark, and some who don't, and I'm sure nowhere near close to 100%! That doesn't mean that fear of the dark doesn't exist or is not real.


My challenge has something to do with that, which is why I asked for the services of a professional statistician. Did you choose those odds are right because there were hundreds of applicants? Does anyone know how many hundreds exactly? And did all the claims have the same odds?

In any case, the paranormal challenge committee states in its formal application instructions that I have downloaded and printed out that if one passes the challenge all the way to the end, they will pay the $1 million, which again, I don't believe they will agree that anyone has passed (!), BUT they state, that does not mean that they are admitting that the paranormal exists! Sigh! Why, then, would they pay the $1 million? That's what the payment is supposed to be for scientific proof of--that the paranormal exists! Sounds like a Catch-22 to me!

Success in a test is determined by significantly beating the statistical odds, so zero paranormal ability will yield random chance, which is defined as failure. Flipping a coin will yield 50:50 heads or tails within a certain range determined by how often you flip it. If your claim is an ability to control a coin flip with your brain, you must exceed the statistically expected range for a given number of flips.

The repeated failures in the past are both testimonies to the accurate designs of the tests and the complete lack of paranormal abilities.

 

[slyjoe]

Hi, Slyjoe,

First of all, whether the posters here like it or not, and if they don't, I'm sorry they feel that way, which they are entitled to feel, it IS my prerogative to be coy. Most find it sexy. I don't see anything in the rules prohibiting being coy. One gentleman, who shall remain nameless, I believe, has become overly frustrated by this in my behavior and has opted out. So sorry.

However, please see the link I have posted earlier with the application to the $1 million paranormal challenge to download. That is what I am basing my request upon. If I'm not mistaken, it does ask that the government or accredited college or university be U.S. (are there accrediting bodies of colleges/universities elsewhere than in the U.S? If so, I am ignorant about such bodies although I would be interested to know if you'd like to so inform me!)

Nope.

In order to establish the serious nature of the
application, at least one of the three following items
must be provided with this application:
1. A signed letter of reference from a medical doctor, a
faculty member at an accredited university or
college, or a professional research scientist (i.e.,
employed by an industry or government agency)
stating that the person should be considered a
serious Applicant and that the claim merits testing.

Finally, the application instructions do warn about getting experts to validate one's claim that are not exactly in one's field, as you question and they give an example of such in the application instructions. However, most paranormal claims don't have many professionals in that field in government or college/university jobs, I don't think; after all the paranormal according to the challenge has never even been adequately scientifically proven so how could there be professionals in that field to judge potentially valid claims?!

"Paranormal" is pretty wide anyway. Telekinesis? Maybe a physics guy. The instructions also indicate you may want to talk to a doctor. But nothing about "US" or "statisticians".

However, the field of my challenge, which, would you like to guess about?, I will tell anyone who guesses correctly even before I am ready to reveal my challenge, I don't think contains any living statisticians, actuaries, or mathematicians. However, numbers don't lie. I think if the professionals I am asking for are good at their jobs, they can prove or disprove what I'm claiming statistically after I fill them in on some symbols, etc.

Thanks for your continued interest! !

Sorry - I can't parse your last paragraph.