🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 18, 4:33 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/09/2010 4:20 PM, 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.)
>
> It appears to be an ability to channel responses that have a better than
> random correlation with the questions. The test protocol involves
> shuffling the response, and letting another person assign responses to
> questions. If a power exists (albeit, as BigLN observed, either in Herc,
> or in the other person) then the matchings produces by the other person
> should have a better than random correlation with matchings produced by
> Herc.
>
> Of course, as psychic powers go, it would have to be one of the most
> useless, but consistent above random performance would indicate that
> something strange is going on.
>
> We don't know why Herc believes he has this power, since he's clearly
> never performed a proper test. Randi's post-facto rationalisation
> hypothesis seems plausible, and even likely.
>
> Sylvia.


You think the following answers are entirely random.


www.popetoyou.com

Is religion crazy?
The Earliest Generalizations

Is skepticism wrong?
suggest how research might be continued

Is the need to generalize a good reason that belief in religion is
sane?
We cannot assume or deduce everything that is possible.

We're looking for a sign (that God is true)?
1 is true

Is James Randi prejudice?
oneviewed

Can I take your $1,000,000 if you do a test?  (to JR)
Whenever you respond.

Are Genesis Adam and Eve alive today?
After creating both of those.

-------------------------------------------

The correlation test protocol is merely to get around subjectiveness,
seems like a useful power to me.


Herc