Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DO THIS PARANORMAL TEST!
Replies: 56   Last Post: Apr 9, 2011 12:29 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 BruceS Posts: 153 Registered: 8/23/05
Re: AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS PRESIDENT REFUSES TO DO THIS PARANORMAL TEST!
Posted: Apr 8, 2011 11:52 PM

On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:09 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > how come this random noise doesn't affect Zenner Card tests guessing 1
> > > > > > card from 5 options?

> > > > 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

> > > 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

>
> WOAH let's stop right there.
>
> Haven't I repeatedly told you that my paranormal bias is approx. a
> CONSTANT +50% over the expected score.
>
> e.g. HALF RIGHT FROM 3 OPTIONS
>
> 1.5/50 from 50 options.
>
> A 3 options test would take 20 trials to be significant
> A 50 option test would take 2000 trials to be significant
>
> I've told you 20 times that the consistency drops with more options.
>
> And I've told you 20 times the 100 number options was an illustrative
> protocol example.
>
> Why do you keep ignoring this Bruce?
>
> There's going to be 20 or more trials to break 1000:1 preliminary odds
> no matter how you do it.
>
> However, if you can MAXIMIZE THE CONSISTENCY then that MINIMISES the
> number of trials needed.
>
> So basically we should be using a "comfortable" range for the number
> of options.
> i.e. the range in which the subjective positives are most easily
> distinguished from the subjective negatives.
>
> So the 'correlation' of any random phrase to 'match' any random 'word'
> seems to be about 1 in 5.

Date Subject Author
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 Soporte
4/3/11 Peter Bowditch
4/3/11 Greendistantstar
4/3/11 Peter Bowditch
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 Greendistantstar
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 George
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 BruceS
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/8/11 Doug Schwarz
4/3/11 the man from havana
4/3/11 George
4/3/11 A B
4/3/11 BruceS
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 BruceS
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 BruceS
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/4/11 Graham Cooper
4/4/11 BruceS
4/4/11 Graham Cooper
4/4/11 BruceS
4/5/11 Graham Cooper
4/6/11 BruceS
4/7/11 Graham Cooper
4/7/11 Graham Cooper
4/8/11 camgirls@hush.com
4/8/11 Graham Cooper
4/7/11 BruceS
4/8/11 Graham Cooper
4/8/11 George
4/8/11 Graham Cooper
4/8/11 BruceS
4/8/11 George
4/8/11 BruceS
4/8/11 Graham Cooper
4/8/11 BruceS
4/9/11 BruceS
4/9/11 Graham Cooper
4/9/11 George
4/4/11 BruceS
4/3/11 Graham Cooper
4/3/11 BruceS