🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29/09/2010 12:48 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "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
>

On the ASS web site, it says

"The test must give a definite yes or no result."

http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/

You want people to accept a test that says "yes" or "don't know". Such 
tests don't qualify.

Sylvia.