🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> 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.

I stated I get the answers from quotes, all skeptics assume any mention
of 'psychic' means they can ask for lotto numbers or fail.



> 
> 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.

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.

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.

The legalese claim just does not work.  Skeptics will ARGUE with you that
paranormal is impossible and refuse to get to any testing stage.

I didn't apply for a debating competition.

Herc