🚀 go-pugleaf

"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