BruceS
Posts:
153
Registered:
8/23/05
|
|
Re: AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DO THIS PARANORMAL TEST!
Posted:
Apr 8, 2011 2:09 PM
|
|
On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:48 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 12:22 am, Brad <goog...@vk2qq.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 2:01 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > how come this random noise doesn't affect Zenner Card tests guessing 1
> > > > card from 5 options?
>
> > > Because the card test is repeated 25 times, followed by 9 more sets of
> > > 25 to randomise the noise out! You can't even get past guessing the
> > > second card.
>
> > You beat me to it, Brad. That's pretty much it, Graham. The one in
> > five is *very* subject to random noise, whether it's one guess from
> > five choices or five guesses from twenty five. It's the repetition
> > that reduces the noise. However, with longer odds, like one in 50
> > (you made the brag), the random noise causes fewer false positives
> > from the start. OTOH, to regularly get a hit on 1:50 odds would take
> > some sort of paranormal ability, and we all (including you) know you
> > don't have that! After all, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you
> > don't believe you have it.
>
> WHAT ODDS PER TRIAL DO YOU ACCEPT EXACTLY?
I've told you repeatedly that I'd be glad to support a test using the
1:50 odds you kept bragging you could do repeatedly. With those odds
per trial (the "I can guess your number 1 to 50" or "I can guess your
number 1 to 100 with two guesses"), a very few hits in a small number
of trials would suffice to demonstrate significant deviation from
chance.
> 1 IN 5 IS OBVIOUSLY ALL GUESSWORK LUCK RIGHT?
You misunderstand again. If you insist on 1 in 5 odds of random hits,
you need to demonstrate the higher-than-noise success rate over enough
of a sample set to trivialize the random effects. For this to work,
you need to commit to that significant number of trials up front. You
could either do that by having the scoring at the end of the set
(which frightens you no end) or by making a real commitment to either
finish the set or admit complete defeat.
> SO WHAT IS IT?
>
> YOU DON'T DO DICE OR COIN CLAIMS I TAKE IT
Sure, I'll do dice or coin claims. If you can demonstrate an ability
to predict either one, with a substantially better than chance success
rate, over a significant number of trials, with no cheating, I'd be
the first to congratulate you. Do you have some idea how to arrange
such a test?
|
|
