🚀 go-pugleaf

|-|ercules wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> |-|ercules wrote:
>>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>>>> |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>> Peter Bowditch wrote
>>>>>> A question was stated. You claimed to be able to "get an
>>>>>> answer from God from random quotes of information". You
>>>>>> did not say that the answer would be in any book, but that
>>>>>> it would come "from God from random quotes of information".
>>>>>> You offered no random quotes. Therefore you offered no
>>>>>> answers. Therefore you failed a preliminary test and
>>>>>> nothing further needed to be done.
>>>>>
>>>>> For your FINAL test you have to break 1,000,000:1 odds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what your preliminary requirement is but JREF
>>>>> is just 1000:1 odds.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. to pass a preliminary all I have to do is roll a 6 on
>>>>> a dice 4 times.
>>>>>
>>>>> To guess Barry's questions right, it would be equivalent of
>>>>> selecting one single atom out of every atom in the Universe,
>>>>> such are the odds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is harder?
>>>>
>>>> Your assessment of odds seems very arbitrary. The total number
>>>> of words in all the languages spoken by humans is going to be
>>>> far fewer than the number of atoms in the universes. If you
>>>> are asked for 10 names they will come from the total set of
>>>> words.
>>>
>>> I would still have to do 30 THIRTY correct channels running and
>>> the odds are in the realm of Avagadaros number squared : 1
>>> to be correct.
>>
>> So did your claim to be able to answer questions include the caveat
>> that  only some percentage of your 'cannels' would be 'correct'? And 
>> if they were "from god" wouldn't omniscience be implied? It
>> seems that your claim implies an unending sequence of "correct
>> channels", and if you cannot deliver that you should have qualified
>> your claim to remove that implication.
>>
>>> I stated I get the answers from quotes,
>>
>> A mistake, as that is going to be interpreted as getting correct, 
>> accurate, meaningful or informative answers, which is something
>> that you do not deliver.
>>
>>> all skeptics assume any mention of 'psychic' means they
>>> can ask for lotto numbers or fail.
>>
>> You seem to be looking for excuses. If you say you get answers to 
>> questions and then don't deliver answers when questioned then you
>> fail on no other grounds than not being able to do what you say
>> you can do.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you say "from God" then omniscience is
>> implied and so long odds can also be expected.
>>
>>>> Your problem here mostly stems from your inability to formulate
>>>> your claim such that it precisely describes what it is that you
>>>> think you can do. If you make the unqualified assertion that you
>>>> can answer questions then you can expect the testing of that
>>>> assertion to be cantered around the asking of questions, where
>>>> the failure to answer will be taken as failing the test.
>>>>
>>>> The odds of correctly answering the questions does not come into
>>>> it, until or unless you qualify your claim in such a way as to
>>>> exclude questions where the odds of guessing the answer are too
>>>> long, or where the odds are anything but meaningless (if the
>>>> latter is what you actually want).
>>>>
>>>> For example, if you qualified your claim such that "for any
>>>> question where the accuracy of any response is undeterminable
>>>> (such as a 'should I do ... ?' question, where it is not
>>>> possible to compare the consequences of 'doing' with those of
>>>> 'not doing' as it is never possible to do both) you can generate
>>>> a response, where if that response were inserted into a list of,
>>>> say, 9 random quotes (genuinely randomly generated) from the
>>>> same book, a minimum of 90% of ordinary humans would be able to
>>>> pick out the psychically generated response from that list as the 
>>>> most apt/appropriate response to the question", then such a 
>>>> formulation would not be tested with questions that you were
>>>> expected to accurately answer. Indeed test protocols for such
>>>> a claim should be fairly easy to devise, and many of them would
>>>> be completely acceptable 'sceptic organisations'.
>>>>
>>>> It is the vague claims that encompass things that you clearly
>>>> are not capable of doing, such as 'answering questions' or
>>>> 'reading minds', that are going to leave you running around
>>>> in circles not being taken seriously by anyone.
>>>>
>>>> If you win a paranormal prize by being able to do what you say
>>>> you can do (where what you say you can do would be paranormal)
>>>> then it seems like a good idea to be very precise about what
>>>> it is exactly you are saying you can do.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a CLAIM, and then there is a mutually worked together
>>> test protocol which details all the specifications and limits
>>> of the claim.
>>
>> If you make an unqualified claim to be able to answer questions
>> people are going to interpret that as asserting an ability to
>> answer any question, and take failure to provide an answer to
>> the questions they ask you as indicating the claim to be false.
>> If you don't like that then you need make a claim that only
>> includes the thing that you can do.
>>
>>> I've designed 10 TEN test protocols on my own, 2 to Sylvia's
>>> satisfaction but skeptics ignore them.  They ask for lotto
>>> numbers instead.
>>
>> What I observe people doing is asking you to match the claims
>> you make. You make claims that imply you can do lotto numbers,
>> if you cannot you should be clearer about what it is you are
>> claiming to be able to do. Recall that yesterday you told me
>> "... just tell me a page number and line number and I'll read
>> out what you are thinking about from my book". You had your page
>> and line numbers but you haven't yet managed to tell me what I
>> was thinking. Unsurprising as the odds of guessing that are a lotto 
>> number, but you still offered to do it. So don't tell me
>> that it is unreasonable for you to be expected to do it because
>> the odds are too long, it was you who made the claim that you
>> could do it, not me making any demands of you.
>>
>>> I think the best compromise solution at this point is the
>>> skeptics post some acceptable paranormal test protocol
>>> documents, publish ALL claims and WHY they were rejected,
>>> and comment on demonstrations.
>>
>> That would be a complete waste of their time. You already know
>> why you were rejected: you made an unqualified clime to be able
>> to answer questions, you were asked questions and you did not
>> answer them: FAIL.
>>
>>> The legalese claim just does not work.
>>
>> Have you tried? In every set of paranormal prize rules I have
>> seen the first step for the claimant is to make a precise statement 
>> of what they can do (the paranormal ability) and
>> the circumstances under which they can do it. Your statements
>> about what you can do have been sufficiently vague as to
>> encompass things that you can be quickly demonstrated as not being 
>> able to do (such as answering questions). If your claims
>> did not include these things that you cannot do then you could
>> not be failed for not being able to do them. Thus narrow the
>> claim to include only the things that you can do, and if there
>> is anything left, and it is paranormal, the testing process
>> might move forward.
>>
>>> Skeptics will ARGUE with you that paranormal is
>>> impossible and refuse to get to any testing stage.
>>
>> That is self-evident nonsense. I, for example, tested your offer
>> to tell me what I was thinking if I gave you a page and line number.
>> I gave you the page and line numbers in good faith. And I judge the
>> outcome of test as a failure on your part for no reason other than
>> your not being able to tell me the thing you offered to tell me.
>> I do not believe that paranormal abilities exist, and I never 
>> expected
>> that you would fulfil your offer to tell me what I was thinking, but
>> none of that stopped me from going through with the test (following
>> the rules you stated) and it certainly could not have been a factor
>> in your inability to do what you said you would do.
>>
>>> I didn't apply for a debating competition.
>>
>> Probably a good thing as your would not do well in such a completion.
>>
>> But a question remains; what precisely is your supposed paranormal 
>> ability? Apparently it is not an unqualified ability to answer 
>> questions, and it certainly is not an ability to tell people what
>> they are thinking, so what is it? (And before you say it, thinking
>> that you are Napoleon is not a paranormal ability, just an abnormal
>> condition.)
>
> LOOK MORON.

Way to win friends and influence people.

> I stated a claim of a general nature as was requested
> on the application

That is not what you are asked for. You are asked to state what you are 
going to do. If you make a genial claim that encompasses things that you 
cannot do then you can expect to be failed as a result of your inability 
to do those things. What you need to do, and what you are actually asked 
to do, is make a claim that corresponds with what you can do. How 
general or how specific that claim then needs to be only depends on what 
it is you can do.

> that asks you to be able to break 1,000,000:1 odds.
>
> Did I satisfy a paranormal element of that claim?  YES

Yes, you made a claim to be able to do something (answer questions, 
unqualified) which would have been paranormal if you had been able to do 
it.

> Did I satisfy any and all possible interpretations of the claim?  NO

No, you claimed to be able to do something that you couldn't actually 
do. It isn't a question of "possible interpretations of the claim"; you 
claimed to be able to do it, and you could not do it. If you don't want 
that to happen then you should modify your claims so that they only 
cover the things that you can do.

> To properly state a CLAIM, with all the specifications and pass
> / fail parameters is actually the PROTOCOL.

You don't have to state pass/fail parameters; they would be implied by a 
precise claim. What you do need to do is avoid claming to be able to do 
things that you cannot do. If that means being more specific, or 
including lists of caveats, then so be it.

> As already stated I have produced numerous VALID TEST PROTOCOLS sent 
> them to a DOZEN OF SKEPTICS COMPETITIONS and I NEVER GET
> A REPLY.

The few attempts at producing protocols that I have seen you post to 
newsgroups have been incoherent, so it is unsurprising that if the 
elicit nothing more than bewilderment.

> Can you at least rethink your argument so that it has some
> purposeful avenue for a test to proceed?

I don't need to re-think anything. I know that if you want to design a 
test that will make a discrimination then it is first necessary to pin 
down precisely what discrimination that test is supposed to make. If you 
can state what you can do then a protocol for meaningfully testing it 
can be devised. And indeed, in so far as you have stated what you can do 
you have been subject to valid test procedures, and failed then as a 
result of not being able to do what you said you could do. You said you 
could answer questions, your were asked questions, you did not answer so 
you failed. If instead you could restrict the things you say you can do 
to only those things that you can do then you could not be failed for 
demonstrating an inability to do them.

> The PARANORMAL (LEGALLY TIGHT) CLAIM is the real contradiction
> in terms.

No it isn't.

> If you think I didn't demonstrate some aspect of mind reading then
> say so,

I have said so. How clearly is it possible to state that when you 
offered "... just tell me a page number and line number and I'll read 
out what you are thinking about from my book", and I gave you a page and 
line number, your inability to tell me what I was thinking about is a 
failure to demonstrate mind reading? It was you who said what you were 
going to do, and it was you who failed to do it.

> otherwise you are a chicken shit.
>
> Being asked to state a brief claim of what you can do, that specifies
> all requirements and limitations and pass and fail criteria and
> objective step wise procedures and binomial distribution and T Square
> chart ranges in 25 words or less cannot be done.

You don't need to do that. You only need to formulate you claim such 
that it only includes the things that you can actually do (and that 
those things are paranormal). Sylvia's formulation; "an ability to 
channel responses that have a better than random correlation with the 
questions" is only 15 words, it excludes much that you demonstrably are 
not capable of doing (such producing accurate or informative answers, 
or reading minds) and it is testable. The question is, is that the 
ability you actually have, and if so why not make that claim? Granted it 
would be a totally unimpressive claim, but there is not reason why a 
paranormal ability should necessarily be (or be made to sound) 
impressive. It would be foolish (even insane) to let ego stand in the 
way of a million dollar prize.

> My test protocol is 2 pages long.
> My claim is 1 sentence.

But it is a claim to be able to something that you cannot do.

> I've written 500 paraphrases of the two.

A tendency towards hyperbole is not going to be helpful in this context.