🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18/09/2010 5:11 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> 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.

Yes.
>
>
> 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