So I am going to count the days until Steampunk is banned for eternity...
1....
Well, that was fast. A few hours after that post my prediction came to pass, so all is well for a week in Sciforumsland...
So I am going to count the days until Steampunk is banned for eternity...
1....
Well, that was fast. A few hours after that post my prediction came to pass, so all is well for a week in Sciforumsland...
He was already banned when you made the prediction
I didn't see it, so it is all the same... But do I guess the 3 passes, the prize of the bet?
You said - I think you're wimping out because you know you will fail any fair test of your supposed psychic abilities.
I did not create that thread with sarcasm in mind. I am genuinely interested in anybody who says they have psychic powers that are even close to 100% reliable. Such powers should be easy to show under controlled conditions.
kwhilborn note: I claim above probabilies and chance, but not near 100%
“
I said - I have not started a paranormal thread in years. I am a Licensed Engineer and am not focused on proving anything to anyone.
”
You said - That's a standard cop-out for people who are offered the opportunity to apply for James Randi's million dollar challenge. "I don't need the money! I have nothing to prove" Well, then, why not donate it to a worthy charity that could use $1million? You'll be doing a great good with your special powers. Proving something to somebody is beside the point (although why claim a power if you can't demonstrate it?).
"Crunchycat - It would have been far more preferable to publically see him fail with the claim."
So youd already decided the out-come of the experiment before embarking on it?
Good job he left really you would have been completely wasting his time.
The whole point of *any* half decent psychology experiment is that youre agnostic about the outcome - given that the psyche can simply output the outcome it wants without you even being consciously aware of it.
kwhilborn did actually make a very interesting point while he was here though which i think alot of you missed.
<HOW MANY COINCIDENCES EQUALS PROOF>
This is typically the problem with proofs of this nature, we have no pre-defined or definitive idea of when a coincidence transforms into a proof.
We can calculate the statistical likelyhood of an outcome, but these could still be subjectively understood as 'statistical coincidences'.
So where exactly is the problem then?
The problem as i see it is that we all have our own internal measurements to define the point at which a coincidence becomes a proof, which largely seem to be part of subconscious process rather than an outward rationalised one.
So how can we satisfy our non-rationalised internal standards?
Id agree with kwhilborn in as much as the best way to satisfy your own requirements of proof would be to provide your own.
You need to self-experience the coincidence/proof for the greatest chance of comming into contact with your self-defined version of either.