Yes, I'm not even reading the text but I am a firm non-believer of pseudo-science. Look David, we've outlined it very simply. We do not believe your code was written correctly. Please show us your code and if it does not contain errors, given that the probability of what you did was on the order of 10^-18, I will believe that you have ESP. If you show us your code, and it does indeed play the Monty Hall game, and you managed to get 76 wins without switching the door, I'll believe you have super-human powers.
Either that, or just play my game. If you put in $4, and I put in $5, and out of 100 times you win 76 times, you win $468. That's a lot of money. With regards to ESP and all the arguments concerning time intervals and variations of the human mind, you are now simply deviating tremendously from your original statement that the probability of winning is 1/2 if one does not switch the door. Your unwillingness to take up Stefan or my offers in this manner shows us a lack of confidence you have in your answer. Or would you care to make a counter offer? Did you play Charles' program? With all of this said, I know this topic has strayed very far from Rubik's Cube, so I'm going to bring it back to the Rubik's Cube. If people are going to make claims, they should be willing to prove it. Creating a situation, such as this one, where things cannot be proven is not an excuse. In the case where something cannot be proven, we have no reason to believe it. No one can prove super-human powers, or ESP, or even religion for that matter, and so, the cubing community will not accept these reasons as excuses for whatever situation may arise. If you claim there are unicorns, it's your responsibility to prove to me that there's a unicorn. It's not my fault that I can't find a unicorn, and then you use that result to say that I can't disprove it, and therefore it's true. That's a logical fallacy. So, if you're going to post an unofficial world record, don't create a situation where you'll never be able to reproduce it, or you'll never be able to prove yourself. What if Macky started posting 11 second averages and then claimed, "I only have magical abilities on the cube when no one else is watching. Otherwise I get nervous. Oh, and if you film it, I get nervous too." Then how in the world are we supposed to verify it? If something cannot be proven, no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Tyson Mao MSC #631 California Institute of Technology On Dec 30, 2005, at 10:10 AM, d_j_salvia wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Stefan Pochmann" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> --- In [email protected], "d_j_salvia" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> "Mind Reach" by Russell Targ & Harold Puthoff, >>> Introduction by Margaret Mead. ISBN 0-440-05688-8. >> >> From a 5-point review on Amazon: >> >> --- >> Many of the subjects who participated in the experiments described in >> Mind-Reach are well-known figures today: Ingo Swann, Patrick Price, >> URI GELLER ... >> --- >> >> From randi.org: >> >> --- >> Parapsychologists Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ, who studied Mr. Geller >> at the Stanford Research Institute (now known as Stanford Research >> International) were aware, in one instance at least, that they were >> being shown a magician's trick by Geller. They described it in their >> book Mind Reach, where they said that they >> >> had every confidence that Uri could do that trick [the blindfold >> drive] as well as any of the dozens of other magicians who do it. > > This implies what? > >> Targ and Puthoff issued a lengthy and quite positive scientific >> paper extolling the psychic abilities of Geller. Their protocols for >> this "serious" investigation of the powers claimed by Geller were >> described by Dr. Ray Hyman, who investigated the project on behalf of >> a U.S. funding agency, as "sloppy and inadequate." > > From Edwin C. May, Ph.D. > Cognitive Sciences Laboratory > Palo Alto, California > >> In the Section on the Evaluation Plan in the report, Mumford et al. > (Page 2-1, 1995) correctly required of the laboratory investigations > "...unambiguous [emphasis added] evidence for the existence of the > phenomenon... ." Following this lead, Hyman hypothesized a number of > alternative explanations for the observed statistical significance > other than the anomalous cognitive one, although he admits he couldn't > find any obvious flaws in the methodology (Mumford et al., 1995, Page > 3-75). < >eoq< > > Concerning SRI's research with Geller, Dr Ray Hyman did not witness > them. > >> --- >> >>> Don't believe everything you read. >> >> Don't worry, I certainly don't. >> >> Cheers! >> Stefan > > Can you honestly say that you didn't believe what you just quoted? > > IIRC Randi was there at SRI for the Iri Geller trials himself. He went > over all of their procedures. He prides himself at being able to sniff > out fakery. He found nothing wrong. He himself found that SRI's > experiment was neither sloppy nor inadequate. > > I am not at all impressed that Randi quotes someone else describing > that SRI experiment as sloppy and inadequate, especially when he knows > better from his own experience. > > David J > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/MXMplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
