2 ms·

> Anyone can get 100% accuracy by guessing trivial things that are always true regardless of the nature of the target But trivial things that are always true d

> Anyone can get 100% accuracy by guessing trivial things that are always true regardless of the nature of the target But trivial things that are always true does not describe the information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. > How come nobody can replicate this in less opaque settings? You can, right now! You can try it yourself, see my other comments in this thread for resources.

energy123 2y ago
> information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. Those numbers aren't described with the level of rigor needed to be considered evidence. No examples, no methodology, etc. We don't know what "usable intelligence" means. You have taken the liberty of interpreting that in a particularly generous way. > You can, right now! I mean under controlled conditions. Why didn't any of these people in /r/remoteviewing sign up for the JREF $1 million prize? Or at least contact parapsychologists (e.g. Dean Radin or Daryl Bem) who would have been happy to facilitate rigorous public experiments? The best we have from experiments is statistical effects, e.g. guessing a coinflip correctly 51% of the time over large numbers of trials. Not the kind of large, obvious effects that "50% useable intelligence" or "85% accuracy" is hinting at.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  And you will always take the liberty of interpreting any 3rd-party data in a particularly conservative way until you correct your prior data deficit with first hand experience. That's the key issue. So you need to try if you are serious about getting the truth. Think of it like doing the required pre-requisite work to understand a new topic. This is the same. Why would you enter a competition you believe was a rigged attempt to disprove what you know through first hand experience to be real?

energy123 2y ago

> information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. Those numbers aren't described with the level of rigor needed to be considered evidence. No examples, no methodology, etc. We don't know what "usable intelligence" means. You have taken the liberty of interpreting that in a particularly generous way. > You can, right now! I mean under controlled conditions. Why didn't any of these people in /r/remoteviewing sign up for the JREF $1 million prize? Or at least contact parapsychologists (e.g. Dean Radin or Daryl Bem) who would have been happy to facilitate rigorous public experiments? The best we have from experiments is statistical effects, e.g. guessing a coinflip correctly 51% of the time over large numbers of trials. Not the kind of large, obvious effects that "50% useable intelligence" or "85% accuracy" is hinting at.

keepamovin 2y ago
And you will always take the liberty of interpreting any 3rd-party data in a particularly conservative way until you correct your prior data deficit with first hand experience. That's the key issue. So you need to try if you are serious about getting the truth. Think of it like doing the required pre-requisite work to understand a new topic. This is the same. Why would you enter a competition you believe was a rigged attempt to disprove what you know through first hand experience to be real?