🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29/09/2010 6:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>> On 29/09/2010 6:08 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's just IMPOSSIBLE for a skeptic to ask a psychic a question without
>>>>> a right or wrong test being involved,
>>>>
>>>> It's only impossible if you expect the question to provide evidence of
>>>> psychic powers. Unless there is a testable correct answer the question
>>>> is meaningless and proves nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> IT'S FUCKING EASY PETER BUT YOU SHIT FOR BRAINS WON'T TEST MULTI CHOICE
>>>
>>> I FIGURE OUT THE QUESTION ASKED, OR AN ACCOMPLICE SELECTS MY PHRASE
>>> FROM 2 OTHER RANDOM PHRASES.
>>>
>>> YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID MATE
>>>
>>> Herc
>>
>> Herc certainly confuses the issue by the terminolgy he uses.
>>
>> Each round in a test of Herc's power consists of taking what is, for
>> practical purposes, a group of 3 arbitrary phrases, each terminated
>> for no good reason by a question mark.
>>
>> These phrases are then numbered 1, 2 and 3, shuffled, and presented to
>> Herc, without their numbers. Herc will then specify which phrase was
>> number 1. He clearly has a 1 in 3 chance of getting it right by
>> chance, but claims that he can do significantly better than that.
>>
>> The mechanism by which he believes he can achieve this he
>> characterises variously as mind reading, bibliomancy, and so on, but
>> neither the mechanism, nor Herc's requirements on how the phrases are
>> constructed, should be of any concern to the skeptic, who is only
>> interested in the outcome.
>>
>> If Herc had the power, it would be easy enough to demonstrate. The
>> problem for Herc is that he regards any failure of a test to
>> demonstrate the power as evidence that the test is flawed, and that a
>> different test needs to be devised. Herc will presumably go to his
>> grave retaining the belief that he had special powers, despite all the
>> evidence to the contrary.
>>
>
> HUH? You evade getting evidence due to the possibility that it doesn't
> exist.

No, but I have no interest of even risking being in this loop:

do {
	x = FALSE
} while(x == FALSE);
	
>
> By all means post your evidence, and not HE DID THIS THEN HE SAID THAT.
>
> Post your data and cite the experiments.
>
> I would LOVE to see all this evidence that I had no paranormal power.

Haven't I already said that your power is not falsifiable?

Sylvia.