Psychics fail scientific test.

Great Debates
81

I am sorry, but you are totally wrong about that. These people *hate *psychics, they wish to attack psychics in any damn way they can. The very last thing they would do is give them a fair chance.

Allow me to introduce you to a trick used by this type of person. Whatever thye psychic requests, they insist on the opposite.

If the psychic says he needs to wear a blue hat, they demand that he perform bareheaded. Cue long correspondence, where the psychic repeatedly protests, but the testers refuse to compromise.

There are three possible outcomes.

  1. the psychic agrees to the test, and wins. This due to some blunder by the testers. Cue the testers making excuses, trying to cover up the results, even outright lying. This is rare, but happens sometimes. See Gauquelin affair for an example.

  2. Psychic declines the test. Tells them that he cannot perform without his hat. Testers then declare themselves to have beaten him by default. This is the usual outcome.

  3. Psychic agrees to take the test, without his hat, and under protest. He is required to sign a statement that the test is ‘fair’. He fails the test. He then says that the test was unfair, because he wasn’t allowed his hat.

Basically, if they demand that the psychic sign a form, it is because they are trying to excuse some shabby trick. Genuinely fair tests speak for themselves and don’t need excuses.

82

Yes, as always. But in the interest of possibly saving us both some time, I am going to say that the chances we’ll change our minds a year and a half later are essentially nil.

83

Got it.

If psychic ability is, in reality, just being really good at reading people, then whether he or she will be fooled by the false persona depends on whose skills are stronger – the actor’s or the reader’s. And there are some readers that are really good at seeing through the BS.

84

I would like to see a test performed on subjects from the general population that were not aware they were being tested. Just set up situations that could expose telepathic communication even if the the subjects did not recognise it as such. The subjects could possibly be selected from groups who filled out a questionaire with a small percentage of the questions indicating that this person just might have potential. "Situations might include every day life choices we make such as what to wear, what to eat, what to do that day etc. If their was some indication of activity the situations could gradually and progressively become more difficult.

85

Right, and that’s why the real psychics never take part in these tests, They always decline. So the scientists end up testing phony psychics and of course always get negative results. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

86

Right, I may get round to it in a few days, if I’ve nothing better to do.

Meanwhile, I suppose you’re going to ignore Princhester’s attacks on me.

There, trying to resurrect a several years old discussion, accusation that I wouldn’t answer (Although I did) and the original question all those years ago was of the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet variety, it’s totally irelevant to the matter at hand, and the tone of the whole is pretty snarky.

Does this count as a personal insult?

Is it worth a ‘knock it off’ at the least?

87

Report the posts to the MPSIMS mods if you want to get their attention, and please stop commenting about the moderation in this thread.

88

Peter - is there any type of “unfairness” that you can see in my proposed experiment?

89

I knew this was gonna happen.

90

Really? Really? And you describe the whole situation as such:

[QUOTE=Peter Morris]

One example of this is the astrologer tested by CSICOP when they were newly formed. The astrologer succeeded in the test they set him.

Now the fact is, both the astrologer and CSICOP agreed in advance that it was a fair test of his abilities. Of course, after he won, CSICOP made a lot of excuses.

[/QUOTE]

I don’t know where to begin with how wrong this is. First of all, Gauquelin never considered himself to be an astrologer and was very offended by those who referred to him as such. He was an astronomer and mathematician, he happened to study astrology. he never claimed any abilities in astrology.

Secondly, while there were similar players the Zelen Test (which is what I am assuming that you are referring to in your horrid summation - I could be wrong) the test was actually a test of Gauquelin’s methodology. That is not a test of astrology, it is a test of a testing method. Big difference. Gauquelin, as it turned out, had effective methodology in this regard.

Thirdly, describing CSICOPs reaction as “Of course, after he won, CSICOP made a lot of excuses.” , actually, CSICOP’s reaction was to ignore the results and criticize other factors of the dataset (there was much to criticize in that regard, but Kurtz managed to fuck that up). So while CSICOP is certainly guilty of not announcing that some of their members had been barking up the wrong tree since before CSICOP was founded (yes, much of the events predate the founding of CSICOP) I would hardly call it ‘making excuses’. The test was not a test of astrology, pure and simple. Even Suibert Ertel (no friend of anyone except Gauquelin) blitzed astrologers who declared the Zelen Test was a test of astrology (and damn he could be harsh). The actual ‘test’ would have been Gauquelin’s original work, but as it turned out there were more than a few problems with that.

Fourthly, while CSICOP was screwing up their analysis, Gauquelin was doing his own analysis, and guess what? He screwed up too! So I’d have a hard time saying he ‘won’. Ironically, the only person who did a proper check was Dennis Rawlins (the author of sTARBABY) but by this point he had done such a bad job of relating to fellow CSICOP members, making CSICOP look bad, and insulting Gauquelin that nobody really wanted to listen to him.

91

Try finding some facts, for a start.

Yeah, right.

  • “The Mars effect is a purported statistical correlation between athletic eminence and the position of the planet Mars relative to the horizon at time and place of birth. This controversial finding was first reported by the French psychologist and “neo-astrologer” [1] Michel Gauquelin published in his book L’influence des astres (“The Influence of the Stars”, 1955) the first major study of astrology.”*

It’s astrology. What would YOU call it, if not astrology?

Sounds like making excuses to me. What would you calll it, if not making excuses?

Your other two points are pretty much the same. You are not disputing any facts here. You are only making trivial complaints about terminology.

92

My sources are from people who were actually present for the events.

Gauquelin never did forecasts, never claimed to be a seer. He thought there might be something to the claims of astrolgers. He merely examined what he thought might be a real effect sticking out through the history of astrology. Same as some medical doctors think they might find possible medical effects by looking at what tribal doctors do with their local resources.

Gauquelin never considered himself an ‘astrologer’. He never took a test of his astrological abilities because he never claimed to have any.

I’d call it fucking up the data and barking up the wrong tree. Your implication is that they had found genuine evidence of astrology by testing an astronomer and tried to explain it away. That is wrong. Very wrong. They were testing Gauquelin’s methodology and it turns out they were looking at the wrong thing. Bad on them for not owning up that they weren’t looking at the right thing, but you make it seems as if they shoved the Holy Grail under the carpet.

No, I am talking about you making a gross misrepresentation of the situation that would be disputed by parties on both sides. Nothing ‘trivial’ about that.

93

pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to.

94

No, forget semantics. This is a total misrepresentation. I stated VERY CLEARLY that the results were du8e to errors in the procedure. See post #52.

The ENTIRE POINT of me citing the CSICOP test was an example of a test that gave invalid resxults due to poor test design.
I don’t know how you keep misunderstanding such basic stuff.

95

In other words, “your science can’t measure my woo.”

Ideally, one must maintain such an open mind that it requires wearing a baseball cap at all times, lest one’s brains fall out.

96

Therein lies your problem. You still seem to think this is a ‘test’. This wasn’t a test. A test involves trying to actually test someone’s abilities at something. Especially in the context that you try to present the Gauquelin’s work.

Gauquelin’s work was never a test. It was a study of birthdates of athletes where he thought he had found a correlation between athlete’s birthdates. Some pre-CSICOP CSICOP members thought there were gross errors in the baseline and examined it. They were wrong. But it was not a test - it was essentially a bunch of guys doing calculations by hand or with newfangled hand calculators to make a determination of the accuracy of the baseline. It was no more a test than an audit of a company’s finances is a ‘test’, or a medical study of people’s lifespan when they suffer from a disease.

I’m misunderstanding?! You barely understand what went on and have trying to misrepresent the entire matter. I do not have the misunderstanding here.

97

Yeah, it wasn’t a test, in the same way that the Mars effect isn’t astrology. Use whatever word you want, Humpty Duimpty.

Of course, you said it WAS a test several times, i.e.

*Secondly, while there were similar players the Zelen **Test **… the **test **was actually a **test **of Gauquelin’s methodology. That is not a test of astrology, it is a test of a testing method… The **test **was not a **test **of astrology, pure and simple. Even Suibert Ertel … blitzed astrologers who declared the Zelen **Test **was a test of astrology (and damn he could be harsh) … They were **testing **Gauquelin’s methodology… *

98

oooh, such a ‘gotcha’ you got there.

Please. Shall I remind you of what you said about this matter?

This entire statement, especially the bolded parts is a gross misrepresentation of the whole situation. ‘abilities’? Really? What abilities in astrology did Gauquelin claim to have, exactly? How exactly did he ‘win’ this test? Yes, the Zelen test was called a test, but it was in no way was a test in the way you presented it as above. Your wording would have us believe that Gauquelin claimed mystical astrological abilities and that CSICOP tested those abilities like Dawkins & French tested dowsers. Instead the ‘test’ involved a host of math work, and certainly nobody ‘won’ as Gauquelin’s own statistical breakdown was flawed.

I’m not the one misrepresenting things here.

99

Okey, folks, just to explain what Misko is doing here. This is a technique he has employed numerous times before, and I’ve fallen for it, but not this time.

The type of test that Miskatonic likes, are run by the worst pseudo-skeptics, and generally full of fraud. They aren’t real scientific tests of a claim, they are attempts to trip up the psychic in any way possible, through trickery. When anyone points out the fraud, Miskotonic (and others) pulls out the canard that both parties agreed to the test. which he thinks overcomes all objections. It doesn’t, and the fraud is still obvious.

In an attempt to point out the flaw in his claim, I have cited a counter example. CSICOP tested an astrologer, both parties agreed to the test, and the astrologer won. The test was poorly designed. What this proves is that a test can be agreed by both sides, and still be faulty.

Miskatonic has no answer to this, and it’s making him livid.

And so, he tries to distract attention away by arguing trivial points about the meaning of words. He objects to the tested claim being called Astrology. He objects that CSICOP wasn’t actually called that yet.

I refuse to argue with him. If he thinks that The Mars Effectdoesn’t count as astrology, then he can call it what he likes. I’m not going to argue about whose word is better. It just doesn’t matter.

All this is, is a feeble attempt to distract away from a point that he just cannot answer.

100

I think I have seen psychic ability in action, but I don’t know that it could be tested as psychic ability, or if it’s just extraordinary (but not extrasensory) perception.

The scene: A high school brain bowl (or something like that)
The person: Kid on my son’s team, also a good friend of my son (for years)
The situation: I had seen this kid in action before, and he was good. He excelled at Mathletics and got medals at Science Olympiad and History Bowl. But in this case they were doing sort of a game-show deal where the first person to hit the buzzer got the first shot at the answer (not unusual) but when the person hit the buzzer, the questioner stopped reading the question and it had to be answered right then. If the first buzzer failed, he would go on and read the rest of the question.

It got really strange. It got to be like this kid had the answer sheet, and had memorized it. Or like someone was whispering the answers in his ear, which also didn’t happen.

Questioner: In this story by Edgar Allen BZZZT
Kid: The Telltale Heart.
Q: Correct. In this painting by American artist BZZZT
K: A pitchfork.
Q (looking a little uncertain) Uh…In the following problem, find for x. If d is equal to BZZT!
K: (correct answer, I have no idea)

And it went on in that vein for quite awhile. Eventually the other team started buzzing early too, and got some right, but mostly missed them.

It wasn’t like the organizers said, “You will be asked some questions from the following gigantic pool of learning and American culture” although they were all things that high-school kids, particularly smart ones, should be able to know or figure out.

I was sitting next to the kid’s mom, and I said, “How is he doing that?” She just shook her head.

So in the car on the way home I asked him how he managed to answer those questions, particularly the math questions, without hearing the whole question. And he gave me this look. And said, “I heard the whole question.” His mom and I looked at each other and his little sister did the “Twilight Zone” theme, which made him say, “What, didn’t the rest of you hear the whole question?”

His mother said no, we hadn’t. Then she said, to me, “He kinda does this all the time.”

He said, “Well, I was really concentrating. And I did hear it.”