🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30/09/2010 8:03 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote...
>> 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?
>
>
> You want a 200th rewording of the explanation?
>
> When I said "think of any idea" it was in the context of asking volunteers
> to think of any idea. Not for a technical caveat where the skeptics
> instruct
> everyone to think of a wavy line or the number 7.

My mistake for assuming that "any" had its everyday meaning of "without 
restriction". Are there any, er, I mean other, without restriction, 
words that you're redefining? You're going to find dificulty agreeing 
with skeptics on a test protocol if you can't even agree what the words 
mean.

>
> The majority of people volunteering for a test or clicking on a
> "MIND READING DEMO CLICK HERE" ad on Google will think of something
> that is somewhat interesting to them, only a few percent will focus on a
> head or tail or the letter B or meaningless nonsense.
>
> The web is a totally different crowd to usenet re:paranormal, when I get
> a few hits to my sites or videos I get dozens of people saying the
> channeling
> is spot on.
>
> Why don't you test out www.MindReading.com with a question and 2 dummy
> questions? Pick 3 from your cosmology set. Takes 2 minutes then we can
> further the stalled discussion over false anti negative non claim etc.
>
> Put it this way, if you are Peter are so certain I'm not Genesis Adam why
> are you both avoiding doing a test?
>
> All you have to do is think of a question.

I can't speak for Peter, but in my case it's because my certainty leads 
me to the conclusion that a test that can't falsify your power is a 
complete waste of time. Why would I want to embark on a test that I 
fully expect to produce no result?

Sylvia.