🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29/09/2010 5:51 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 29/09/2010 3:34 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>> On 29/09/2010 2:43 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote...
>>>>>> On 29/09/2010 12:48 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2010 12:14 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You've probably heard Sylvia Else backing down from doing an
>>>>>>>>> objective test of my mind reading powers, saying again and again
>>>>>>>>> that a negative result doesn't prove I DON'T have powers so
>>>>>>>>> what is
>>>>>>>>> the point?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We started an objective test, but you bailed out after just two
>>>>>>>> results were in, since they were not to your liking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I "bailed" on one particular protocol that we introduced mid way
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> one test,
>>>>>>> by suggesting a better way of indexing the questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ME : suggest continue testing - make 1 change due to 1 failed result
>>>>>>> YOU : 500 excuses to not test = BAIL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have enough statistical evidence from 0/6 questions right to know
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> to try something different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a no-win situation for me. I fully expect you to fail any
>>>>>>>> test.
>>>>>>>> But you won't then accept that you don't have the power.
>>>>>>>> Instead, at
>>>>>>>> best you'll want to start the whole laborious process again with
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> variant of the protocol. At worst, and on the evidence, most
>>>>>>>> probably,
>>>>>>>> you'll accuse me of subverting the protocol in some way so as to
>>>>>>>> prevent you from succeeding. You'll also engage in various forms of
>>>>>>>> abuse. There are plenty of examples of that stored in Google's
>>>>>>>> Usenet
>>>>>>>> archive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In our recent discussions, it's become clear that you believe your
>>>>>>>> power draws a distinction between what people think and what
>>>>>>>> they do,
>>>>>>>> being sensitive to the former rather than the latter. Pending the
>>>>>>>> construction of real mind-reading machines, this makes your power
>>>>>>>> completely immune to any kind of disproof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In such a situation, why would I, or anyone else, bother? Might as
>>>>>>>> well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because if you make an offer to test people you have to test
>>>>>>> people. I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> mind you being gutless and seeing nothing in it for you and
>>>>>>> expecting me
>>>>>>> to fail,
>>>>>>> but Peter thinking your scientific methodology is correct protocol
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> laugh!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Herc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the ASS web site, it says
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The test must give a definite yes or no result."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You want people to accept a test that says "yes" or "don't know".
>>>>>> Such
>>>>>> tests don't qualify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's per trial you idiot.
>>>>
>>>> It says "The test", not "Each test", indicating that there's only one
>>>> answer, which is either "yes" or "no".
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't disprove a power unless the claim is 100% hit rate.
>>>>
>>>> You can reach a required probability that the failure is not by
>>>> chance, just as there's a required probability that the success is not
>>>> by chance (and heaven help me if I've just pointed out a wriggle that
>>>> Herc hadn't previously noticed).
>>>>
>>>> The wording chosen was "yes or no", not "probably or probably not",
>>>> but it is clear from the rest of the content that the "yes" answer is
>>>> to be determined on the basis that there's a less than one in million
>>>> chance that it's achieved by chance. I see no reason to think that the
>>>> "no" answer would be considered to be absolute.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea why you think I am interested in this line of reasoning,
>>> if you need to justify why you bailed on me then maybe you should
>>> explain it to yourself.
>>
>> I strongly doubted that you were interested, but you're claiming that
>> ASS are reneging on their own protocol. I disagree, so I'm voicing my
>> opinion, which is that they're not, because you're claiming that you
>> possess a power that is not falsifiable, and the ASS requirement that
>> a "no" result be possible means that they require that claimed powers
>> be falsifiable.
>>
>> If you don't like it, try for a prize where that's not a requirement.
>>>
>>> The statement of detecting powers only to be tested is quite clear.
>>
>> That sentence certainly isn't.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> It says objective pass / fail test is required.
>
> If I break 1,000,000:1 AND above my "double expected average" bench mark
> then it's a pass.
>
> If not it's a fail.
>
> The maximum number of trials is the LEAST amount of trials to break
> 1,000,000:1
> at my set bench mark ratio of hits.
>
> Maybe this is what you've been going on about all week, which should be
> evident
> and obvious for all binomial rated trials.
>
> I'm not claiming to break 1,000,000:1 by getting average results for
> thousands of trials
> but eventually scoring really high bringing the odds back up. Minor
> minor minor caveat
> about the binomial odds stated which is trivially implied, if that's
> what your problem was.
>
> You are making the most inane argument I have every come across,
> do all people claiming to break 1,000,000:1 have to define basic common
> sense testing protocol like this?

You've gone off at a complete tangent. What you've said above has 
nothing to do with falsifiability.

Sylvia