🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> 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.  I stated a claim of a general nature as was requested on 
the application that asks you to be able to break 1,000,000:1 odds.

Did I satisfy a paranormal element of that claim?  YES
Did I satisfy any and all possible interpretations of the claim?  NO

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

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

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

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

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

My test protocol is 2 pages long.
My claim is 1 sentence.
I've written 500 paraphrases of the two.


Herc