X-Message-Number: 18115
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 04:30:31 +0000
From: J Corbally <>
Subject: Qualification

William,

Just thought I'd chime in here with some points.  First off, I'd say most 
of the people here can easily tear this experiment apart.  It fails on 
several levels.  But the important point is that the quality of the 
"evidence" isn't just useful, isn't just nice to have.  It's paramount.  It 
must be high quality.  The search for a better understanding of our world 
demands absolutely no less.  I understand you're carrying out this test 
within the confines of the resources available to you, but that's 
especially shaky ground to base a belief on.

>Message #18102
>Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:14:59 +1030
>From: William Henderson <>
>Subject: Qualification
>The 92 consecutive was a once of with a girl who was good a telepathy
>herself.

By what criteria is she "good at telepathy"?  Difficult to say when we have 
no direct proof (that I know) of for telepathy.  We're presupposing the 
existence of such a phenomenon (without proof) and then quantifying it 
("good").

>With others the consecutive scores are around 4 tops. After
>writing the cryonet email I thought I should have qualifies the
>statement. Late at night I just punched it out without thinking. The
>positive scores are extremely rare because the person has to be good at
>thinking of the number when I am ready to receive it and not having
>anything else come into their minds before or after thinking of the
>number.

Here I can see your bias come through (and no is disrespect meant when I 
say that, we all have bias).  You talk about "the person has to be good at 
thinking....when I am ready to receive" as if it's all a forgone conclusion 
that these things happen.  Your not actually showing proof for your claim, 
your explaining away all failures in advance from a position of believeing 
it yourself.  This isn't skepticism by any stretch, but it's not 
open-mindedness either.

>Most of these tests are non consecutive and the majority are
>complete failures.

This is typically the case of any of these kinds of experiments.  This is 
also as it would be if we removed the telepathic hypothesis.  Doesn't this 
tell us something about that telepathic hypothesis?  Ockhams Razor.

>With the girl mentioned I tried, after the 92
>correct, I tried putting numbers in her head which she would receive as
>if she thought of them, we were both tired by then but got a further 9
>consecutive correct.

And what was happening in the control group at this time?

>Numbers over 10 become totally unsuccessful, it
>seems to many things to receive.

This point rang my alarm bells.  You see, if I select a number between 1 
and 10, I have a 1 in 10 chance of getting it right.  If I select a range 
of 1 to 1000 or more, then my chances become much smaller.  This is the 
principle the lottery is based on after all.  But even with large numbers, 
people do succeed.  The Irish Lottery is won on average every 2nd or 3rd 
week, selecting 6 numbers from a panel of 42.  Makes the 1 in 10 after 92 
seem not so hot, wouldn't you say?

>It definitely only, in my experience,
>works with someone I have a rapport with.

But why is that?  If we are claiming this is a qualifier for the 
experiment, then we must be able to explain it much better than just 
stating the test fails when the rapport is bad.  We have to know how this 
can affect the test, which would be a whole ball of wax in itself.  Which 
takes us straight back to square one.

>You can try it your self. Try it with another you have a connection
>with. There should be no one else present if possible, but don't make
>too much of a big deal about it- pressure kills the ability.

I'd bet CSICOP wishes they got a dollar for every time they've heard that 
last part.  Pressure doesn't kill the ability to smash atoms and get a 
consistent result, or to perform a quantum physics experiment or many more 
tests that can be named.  Repeatability is a must, pressure or no.

And that's worth repeating, if you'll pardon my very corny pun.

>Clear both
>your minds. Tell the other person when to think of the number, and then
>of you can keep your mind still as you can the number should enter your
>head as if you just thought of it. I have noticed that many people do
>telepathy but don't realize it.

There again, you're presupposing "telepathy".  You presuppose the existence 
of that which you are attempting to verify experimentally.

>I believe everyone has this capability
>but does not realize it
>  They assume all there thoughts and emotions are
>their own,

A more likely assumption, wouldn't you think?  Otherwise what thoughts and 
emotions are ours, and which ones are someone else's? 10%?  20%?  50%?

>but sometimes they are someone else's.
>William Henderson.

And these are known to be "someone else's" how?

I've committed to memory a quote from a Sherlock Holmes novel (the quote 
also appears in a Carl Sagan book).  It's one of those quotes to live by.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.  Insensibly one 
begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Be also wary of *wanting* "facts" to suit theories, and "theories" to suit 
facts.

Regards & Good Night,



James....

"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and
crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures
to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who'

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18115