Options

A Rather Embarrassing Night for Psychic Sally Morgan

11314161819

Comments

  • Options
    batgirlbatgirl Posts: 42,248
    Forum Member
    munta wrote: »
    So you are still refusing to accept you are wrong and continue to try and change the subject and lie about the facts. It wont work. Everyone on this thread knows your tricks and we wont put up with them.

    Yup.

    I admire your tenacity. :D
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    batgirl wrote: »
    Yup.

    I admire your tenacity. :D
    I'm like a pitbull with things like this :D
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    So you are still refusing to accept you are wrong and continue to try and change the subject and lie about the facts. It wont work. Everyone on this thread knows your tricks and we wont put up with them.

    As I recall Ziborov had demonstrated his skills or showed evidence to JREF. Randi lied and said Ziborov refused the tests. Ziborov never refused the test.

    If you can show me where JPSP said the methodology was flawed I'll agree with you but you can't because they never said it.

    The articles are there for all to read.
  • Options
    batgirlbatgirl Posts: 42,248
    Forum Member
    munta wrote: »
    I'm like a pitbull with things like this :D

    Yes, I can be too, and absolutely abhor the amount of bs that's presented as evidence, usually laced with clumsy criticisms aimed at 'skeptics' (people who don't gasp with amazement at whatever nonsense is being promoted). I've learnt to view it with a certain amount of amusement and try not to get drawn into the detail.
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    I'm like a pitbull with things like this :D

    Yes but unfortunately you haven't shown where JPSP said that Bem's methodology was flawed.

    Puzzling because no conservative scientist expected that outcome does NOT = flawed.


    Nor did you get Randi out of the pickle that he offered statistics to Ziborov that would not be accepted in any legitimate scientific test ( whether or not Ziborov passed a qualifying test or in some other way had impressed JREF).

    Quibbling over whether or not Ziborov had a first round test has little to do with how Randi forced Ziborov out and then claimed he refused. That is where the challenge shows itself as fake.
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    batgirl wrote: »
    Yes, I can be too, and absolutely abhor the amount of bs that's presented as evidence, usually laced with clumsy criticisms aimed at 'skeptics' (people who don't gasp with amazement at whatever nonsense is being promoted). I've learnt to view it with a certain amount of amusement and try not to get drawn into the detail.

    How can a meta analysis by Bem who has a sterling reputation be bs?

    That just shows your own bias.

    Bem successfully refuted Alcocks's critiques of his method.

    Alcock was ignorant of aspects of the methodology.

    Bem is clearly the superior thinker and methodologist.
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bollywood wrote: »
    As I recall Ziborov had demonstrated his skills or showed evidence to JREF. Randi lied and said Ziborov refused the tests. Ziborov never refused the test.

    If you can show me where JPSP said the methodology was flawed I'll agree with you but you can't because they never said it.

    The articles are there for all to read.

    1 - You claimed he had taken the preliminary - he hadn't. Now you are moving the goal posts
    2 - You claimed JPSP had approved the methodology. They hadn't. That's not their job. Now you are moving the goal posts

    The post are all there to read
  • Options
    batgirlbatgirl Posts: 42,248
    Forum Member
    bollywood wrote: »
    How can a meta analysis by Bem who has a sterling reputation be bs?

    That just shows your own bias.

    Bem successfully refuted Alcocks's critiques of his method.

    Alcock was ignorant of aspects of the methodology.

    Bem is clearly the superior thinker and methodologist.

    Haha, here we go. :D
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    batgirl wrote: »
    Haha, here we go. :D

    Leave now while you still have time ;-):D
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    1 - You claimed he had taken the preliminary - he hadn't. Now you are moving the goal posts
    2 - You claimed JPSP had approved the methodology. They hadn't. That's not their job. Now you are moving the goal posts

    The post are all there to read

    As I said my understanding from the 900 posts is that Ziborov had demonstrated his skills.

    I never moved any goalposts that Ziborov was forced out of the challenge by fraudulent methods.

    I said JPSP "vetted" his method oft and it's right there in Bem's description of what JPSP reviews before publishing.

    That isn't moving any goalpost.

    You are still unable to show me where JPSP said his methodology is flawed.

    That is just not true.
  • Options
    charlie1charlie1 Posts: 10,796
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've been reading a few posts, and I don't know why, but the theme from "The Twilight Zone" is in my head.
  • Options
    zx50zx50 Posts: 91,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Until her deluded fans come to their senses, I think she'll always be making a load of money from this 'performance'. I just can't understand why her fans can't see through her fake psychic act for.
  • Options
    batgirlbatgirl Posts: 42,248
    Forum Member
    munta wrote: »
    Leave now while you still have time ;-):D

    I'm fashioning an escape hatch as I post. :D
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bollywood wrote: »
    As I said my understanding from the 900 posts is that Ziborov had demonstrated his skills.

    I never moved any goalposts that Ziborov was forced out of the challenge by fraudulent methods.

    I said JPSP "vetted" his method oft and it's right there in Bem's description of what JPSP reviews before publishing.

    That isn't moving any goalpost.

    You are still unable to show me where JPSP said his methodology is flawed.

    That is just not true.

    1 - You claimed he had taken the preliminary - he hadn't. Now you are moving the goal posts
    2 - You claimed JPSP had approved the methodology. They hadn't. That's not their job. Now you are moving the goal posts
    3 - I never claimed JPSP had said methodology was flawed. That's not their job. Now you are moving the goal posts

    The post are all there to read
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    1 - You claimed he had taken the preliminary - he hadn't. Now you are moving the goal posts
    2 - You claimed JPSP had approved the methodology. They hadn't. That's not their job. Now you are moving the goal posts
    3 - I never claimed JPSP had said methodology was flawed. That's not their job. Now you are moving the goal posts

    The post are all there to read

    Yes I did say they approves the methodology, Bem said the task of the reviewers to evaluate the soundness of it's experimental methods.

    I'm familiar with this publication and what they do, and nowhere did the say his method was flawed.

    So that is a lie, basically.

    Second is that the Randi challenge used fraudulent methods to coerce Ziborov to accept unfair odds by any scientific standard or withdraw. A pseudo skeptic lie.

    Do you deny that?
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bollywood wrote: »
    Yes I did say they approves the methodology, Bem said the task of the reviewers to evaluate the soundness of it's experimental methods.

    I'm familiar with this publication and what they do, and nowhere did the say his method was flawed.

    So that is a lie, basically.

    Second is that the Randi challenge used fraudulent methods to coerce Ziborov to accept unfair odds by any scientific standard or withdraw.

    Do you deny that?

    Moving goal posts again.
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Moving goal posts again.

    You're evading answering a simple question?
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bollywood wrote: »
    You're evading answering a simple question?

    No point - you will just change the question once I answer it. You're good at that.

    ETA - and trying to ask an other question is because you are moving the goal posts. As I said earlier - we all know your tricks.
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    No point - you will just change the question once I answer it. You're good at that.

    ETA - and trying to ask an other question is because you are moving the goal posts. As I said earlier - we all know your tricks.

    It's a simple question.

    Was Randi lying about the challenge?

    I think you are tricky by using CSICOP as a source and presenting psi as needing absolute proof.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    The goal posts have been moved so much they must be about 100miles apart by now.
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bollywood wrote: »
    It's a simple question.

    Was Randi lying about the challenge?

    Simple question - were you wrong about Pavel having taken the preliminary test?
  • Options
    muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The goal posts have been moved so much they must be about 100miles apart by now.
    And all moved by the power of the mind ;-):D
  • Options
    delazarousdelazarous Posts: 503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    Until her deluded fans come to their senses, I think she'll always be making a load of money from this 'performance'. I just can't understand why her fans can't see through her fake psychic act for.

    Because some people need to believe in something other than life & death, irrespective of any amount of evidence. For example, millions believe in a virgin birth and resurrection - the ability to talk to the dead is comparatively plausible.

    I get particularly angry at the 'mediums' preying on and profiting from those grieving the loss of a loved one!
  • Options
    SOHCAHTOA88SOHCAHTOA88 Posts: 2,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Simple question - were you wrong about Pavel having taken the preliminary test?

    I appreciate this wasn't addressed to me but I was involved in the Pavel thread (although it didn’t start out as the Pavel thread) maybe 2/3 years ago.

    Pavel did NOT take the preliminary test. Any indication otherwise is a clear mistatement of the facts.
    The odds of any challenge are standardised at approx 1,000-1 for the preliminary challenge and 1,000,000-1 for the final challenge. The actual odds of any test are not calculated by Randi but by one of the board members who is a mathematical statistician, ‘chip’ something or other.
    This is a challenge and not a scientific test. The latter looks for a statistically significant result which, considering that what we term significant can be quite slight, would be filed under ‘interesting, more work required’. The former is a challenge which looks for more than statistically significant results if people believe they can produce it.
    The rules are published online.

    I remain unclear as to what fraud has been perpetrated as suggested by Bolly.
  • Options
    bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I appreciate this wasn't addressed to me but I was involved in the Pavel thread (although it didn’t start out as the Pavel thread) maybe 2/3 years ago.

    Pavel did NOT take the preliminary test. Any indication otherwise is a clear mistatement of the facts.
    The odds of any challenge are standardised at approx 1,000-1 for the preliminary challenge and 1,000,000-1 for the final challenge. The actual odds of any test are not calculated by Randi but by one of the board members who is a mathematical statistician, ‘chip’ something or other.
    This is a challenge and not a scientific test. The latter looks for a statistically significant result which, considering that what we term significant can be quite slight, would be filed under ‘interesting, more work required’. The former is a challenge which looks for more than statistically significant results if people believe they can produce it.
    The rules are published online.

    I remain unclear as to what fraud has been perpetrated as suggested by Bolly.

    I seriously doubt if you were involved in the protocol if that is your conclusion.

    What occurred is that it became apparent in the course of negotiations that Randi on his own changed the number of tries.

    The odds that Randi offered were way beyond what would be required in any other scientific test.

    Not only did a statistical expert confirm for me how unfair and unscientific this was, but members of JREF were calculating what would be fair and Randi would not budge.

    And Randi was making decisions on his own about the protocol and overruling the volunteers.

    It is simply not true that the application tells people they will need results way outside the realm of other scientific testing.

    The application says that the results will be MUTUALLY agreed upon.

    But Randi doesn't agree to anything that is scientifically sound.

    Yet gullible people think Randi offered a scientific test that the applicant refused.

    That is fraud.

    I'm addition he can say that even a win is not a win because he does not accept psi.

    Fraud and fraud.
Sign In or Register to comment.