|
|
Re: AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DO THIS PARANORMAL TEST!
Posted:
Apr 3, 2011 10:04 PM
|
|
On Apr 4, 11:52 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:45 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 5:54 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 10:53 am, "A B" <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote on 3rd April:
>
> > > > > [PETER BOW-DITCH]
> > > > > AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS INC. FORMER PREZIDENT
> > > > > "I know you can't do it, but please try to understand this.
> > > > > I have never flipped back and forth on this. You have yet to suggest
> > > > > any test which can detect any form of paranormal ability.
> > > > > If you admit that
> > > > > you are guessing it is not paranormal. If you provide the list of
> > > > > words from which the guesses are derived it is not paranormal. If you
> > > > > require someone else to give you line and page numbers out of some
> > > > > unspecified book to help you guess the answers it is not paranormal.
> > > > > If you want to keep guessing until you get something almost right it
> > > > > is not paranormal."
>
> > > > Shouldn't get involved really, but... if this is really what Peter Bowditch
> > > > said, only the last one stands up. I can't see how the others have any
> > > > bearing on the question.
>
> > > > If someone can CONSISTENTLY tell you something that they couldn't have known
> > > > by any normal means, at least more often than they could by chance, then
> > > > it's paranormal - however eccentric their methods.
>
> > > > (I'm being hypothetical. Herc's never so far done that for me personally.
> > > > There have been odd incidents, but they've all been one-offs separated by
> > > > many fluffs.)
>
> > > I think you and I are on the same page. If he could consistently
> > > guess correctly at levels significantly above random chance, *that*
> > > would mean something. In an early test with me, he *did* perform
> > > better than chance, but that was a one-off. Unfortunately, every time
> > > he's given a chance to demonstrate consistent ability, he finds one
> > > excuse or another to either bail out when it doesn't go his way, or
> > > refuse to even start. See other threads where I've offered to do
> > > tests for him to demonstrate guessing ability, and he's refused. I've
> > > repeatedly modified my test protocols to suit his objections, but he
> > > continues to refuse. It no longer looks like he's merely deluded, it
> > > now appears that he has no belief in special abilities himself. He
> > > presents himself as a complete fraud, incapable of doing anything to
> > > demonstrate his claims
>
> > You bullshit every post BS!
>
> > You flat out refused to duplicate the test where I scored 7/11 and
> > the expected was 4/11.
>
> I welcome anyone to check the archives and see the truth on *that*
> one!
That should be easy, you insisted on 1 (ONE) guess instead of the
original 3 or 4 guesses about 200 times!
>
> > Every time I come up with a test you make 3 or 4 changes to
> > increase the difficulty by a factor of 10X at every point, then
> > complain
> > non stop 50 times running now that that somehow stops "RANDOMNESS".
>
> You want tests that emphasize random effects. I want tests that
> minimize it. Which one sounds more like a genuine search for
> extraordinary talents, and which one sounds like a fraud hoping for a
> lucky streak.
>
> > You flat out refuse to allow the 2 basic tenets of the ZENNER TEST.
>
> > 1/ 5:1 odds per trial
> > 2/ Show the card after each guess.
>
> Funny that you should say that, right after I proposed just such a
> test, in the "Question for Sylvia" thread and you snipped it out.
> You're a fraud, and everyone can see it.
>
What? You admitted your protocol constraints were arbitrary by
CHANGING YOUR TEST and within 24 hours call ME the fraud?
When you clear up your accusations maybe we can agree to a trial run.
Don't worry if I score 1000:1 on my 1000th test I'm sure somebody will
offer to see if it's repeatable or not.
That is the f&cking idea!
|
|
