🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30/09/2010 7:30 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 30/09/2010 6:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>>> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is
>>>> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power
>>>> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false
>>>> declarations, with the result that the protocol would still not be
>>>> testing for your power.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific
>>> statement,
>>> it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.
>>>
>>> Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Thinking of any idea will work.
>>> Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved
>>> results.
>>
>>
>> If that will work, then test that. The idea is A, B or C. That is, the
>> idea is a letter. The person declares that they have an interest (it
>> doesn't matter whether it's true). You decide which letter. Easy. No
>> arguments. Done.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> That's a really idiotic suggestion.

Care to explain why? It appears to eliminate problems you've had with 
people perhaps not being interested, or not interested in the right way, 
and it obviates the potential for people thinking you're still trying to 
offer subjective semantic matches as proof.

The most obvious objection is that it might require unreasonably many 
trials to show a statistically significant result. But if that's the 
case, on what basis did you claim it would work?

Of course, since all elements of the test are visible, you would not be 
able to argue that a negative result was invalid, which I suspect is the 
real issue for you.

Sylvia.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Thinking of actually interesting ideas - more improved.
>>> Thinking of a question - more improved.
>>> Thinking of a question and declaration of interest - more improved.
>>> Thinking of a question and actually interested - maximum psychic powers
>>> displayed.
>>>
>>> The general claim is line 1 - the suggested test protocol is the 2nd
>>> last line.
>>>
>>> My question to you is NOT whether the stated claim will definitely
>>> demonstrate
>>> my known supposed power should it exist, it's whether Paranormal Claim 2
>>> with
>>> any suitable minor modifications discussed here is a testable paranormal
>>> claim.
>>>
>>> Herc
>
>
> Well my predictive power that you would abandon the topic and post on an
> irrelevant
> tangent was spot on!
>
>
> Herc