🚀 go-pugleaf

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>> On 29/09/2010 1:15 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> It's quite elementary:
>>>
>>> My first application to Australian Skeptics my address on the
>>> application form was
>>>
>>> 4 MACINTOSH STREET
>>>
>>> and after being asked about my claim to get answers from God, I said I
>>> was Genesis Adam.
>>>
>>> That's what threw the spanner in the works BTW!
>> 
>> I can see that it would. Once you indicated to people that you're 
>> delusional it becomes much harder to get them to take you seriously.
>
>
>If I knew skeptics were so vocal about anti-religious matters I would
>have just made the paranormal claim, I thought skeptics running these
>prizes were scientists and would assess the claims on grounds of testability.

They do. Suggest a power that can be tested.

>
>They have no idea how to organize any test that hasn't been popularized
>on TV.  Peter can't work out how many trials it takes at such a hit rate
>to break 1,000,000:1,

20 correct answers to 20 yes/no questions would do for a start.

> he thinks multi choice tests you can cheat by guessing,

Yep.

>he doesn't like anything subjective as part of the test

Because "subjective" implies judgment, and there has to be an
unequivocal yes/no answer.

>, even if you give
>an objective answer yourself,

Objective is good.

> he's a fucking social worker doing a maths
>evaluation and none of them honor the protocol for a committee review
>of claims.

Make a testable claim. Agree to a protocol that will test the claim.
Easy.

>
>Herc

-- 
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter