Originally posted by buffys
Persol responded:
For me its as simple as getting people who claim to have these abilities and ask them to demonstrate what they can do. The protocol can be derived from the alleged abilities. If someone can, for example, move objects with their mind just set objects of varying weight in front of them and say 'show me'. Obviously all the normal testing rules would be applied and it would have to be repeatable but it seems like a pretty simple thing to test, you just need someone who can actually demonstrate some form of ESP. Once you have that, the actual testing should be easy.
Dear buffys:
This has already been done. Please READ what I replied to Persol.
"Au contrare, mon ami! I have done a quick search on the web and have found...voile!
http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ESPdoc.htm
An excerpt says:
"During that period he had participated in tests involving nearly 700 runs through the standard deck of ESP cards, averaging approximately 32% successes as compared with the mean chance expectation of 20%. Nothing like this prolonged series of tests had ever been made up to that time, and Hubert Pearce's performance was recognized even then as highly exceptional."
So someone has bettered this probability that is so important to everyone. Can I now assume that the discussion is closed because Persol and you and everybody else has agreed that if someone can do this then there is such a thing as ESP? Or do you now prove yourself to be hypocrites by wanting another hurdle jumped over? You see, this is part of the problem. People say they want this, but then when the evidence is presented to them they dismiss it with a wave of their hand. I have submitted the evidence, so now do you all accept ESP?
And in terms of what I "say" I can do, I have explained this once, twice and will not repeat it a third. It really would help for everyone to read what has been said so people didn't have to repeat themselves. But in terms of people believing what I do what I say I can do, I found this charming bit written by skeptic on tarot card reading. This person really is an idiot. On this site:
http://www.icidal.com/xproject/archives/paranormal/coldreading.html
Bob Novella says this:
"Cold reading is a skill used by tarot card readers, psychics, palm readers, iridologists, astrologers, and even salesmen to gather information about a subject. The process begins with careful observation, supplemented by knowledge of statistics and the commonalties of human nature. From these starting points general statements are made, statements which are likely to be true about almost anybody. Visual and verbal feedback from the subject is then used to pursue accurate statements and abandon dead ends, all the time honing the initial guesses to more and more accurate conclusions. In the hands of an expert, the technique can be frighteningly successful, almost uncanny.
Cold reading is not one simple trick but a number of different methods for gleaning surprisingly accurate information about someone's personality characteristics and problems, all with ostensibly little effort. By definition this information is gathered on the spot by conversation, keen observation and a good memory. In contrast, the term 'hot reading' has been applied to information gathering that precedes visual and physical contact, usually through special databases, directories and other resources. Cold readers, though, do not need to rely on such sources. All that is needed is interaction with the subject. Before any interaction, though, most accomplished cold readers have as an information foundation, knowledge of probability and the common denominators of the human condition."
Now I have never done this before in my entire life. The fact that this person demeans everyone and puts everyone in the same charlatan low-life category irks me. You can see where he is wrong on the most basic of things for he asserts that these readers have:
"knowledge of probability"
So I am slammed in one direction by Persol with being accused of not even knowing if such a thing as probability exists and now in this article, it seems I am "MASTER" of it. I suppose if I had to be one of the other the latter is more appealing, but I'm afraid both are very untrue.
In terms of the model, again, the link is there. There is plenty of evidence and all theories until proven are theories. Are you (not you, buffys, but you in general) asserting that before someone hypothesizes a theory they need absolute proof? That should cut down on this activity. Beside this should be unnecessary as Persol has asked for someone to outgun probability. This has been done already.
So we have all agreed on proof being beating probability. It has been done. Now what are we now discussing?
