Tyson, > Your unwillingness to take up Stefan or > my offers in this manner shows us a lack of confidence you have in your > answer.
It is a breach of nettiquete to demand an immediate response. Your conclusions as to why I haven't responded are all products of your imagination - all make believe. Since I met the two previous challenges, I would have thought that you might have concluded that there were other reasons why I was slow in responding. I also would have thought that the conservatism I have shown in my own listing of records on speedcubingdotcom would recommend me to you as one who doesn't make lame excuses, and who understands standards and proofs. If there are lame excuses here they are on your side. > In the case where something cannot be proven, we > have no reason to believe it. I have not asked you to believe anything. I gave you checkable references and you ignored them. I take efforts to keep contexts clear, but it seems you find those efforts to be tedious, which is probably why you missed that I made no claim to having psychic powers. > No one can prove super-human powers, or > ESP, This is, in fact, false. Some psychic abilities have been shown to exist. The inability of academia to honestly deal with this is well-known to many. Remote viewing was successfully demonstrated in a double blind experiment on national television. http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/pub/news/95nov30-dp.html Proofs have been presented many, many times, and refused publication with no good reason. > or even religion for that matter, and so, the cubing community > will not accept these reasons as excuses for whatever situation may > arise. Sorry, but I haven't given any excuses. I was challenged to go to one of several websites and try the game. I did, and when I reported the result I was immediately misquoted. I was challenged to "play the game" 100 times, even though the problem revolves around a single try. I did not get the results I was told I would get, which means that your side failed to convince me, and on top of that it was implied that I was lying. You mistake me for a dancing bear, one who immediately jumps at your slightest urging. I met two challenges, although I took my time, and what did I get for my efforts? Ridicule, and now the false accusation that I was making lame excuses in not meeting challenges. At the time I presented the result of my multiple tries I was still thinking that this was a friendly place. I had hoped that my prior posts here might have given people the idea that I respect people. I had hoped that what I posted would lead to interesting conversations. To many of you here, it's been very nice getting you to know you a little bit, feel free to contact me privately. To the rest, you know who you are, I just say Good bye, David J --- In [email protected], Tyson Mao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 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/
