E-mail Exchange Round 8
Previous Round E-mail List Next Round
Robert de Boer responded:
Subject: Re: Psychic Challenge
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 06:20:27 +1200
From: "Robert de Boer" <[email protected]>
To: "John Blanton" <[email protected]>John,
Yes sorry about that, I was fatigued yesterday, long day followed by only 4 hours sleep.
I had made a concession in that last letter. I will allow you the first correct prediction "free". The test will only need commence if we can work out the probability of each event satisfactorily. If we thought there was no way of working out any individual prediction's probability then we suggest writing to an expert on the subject (eg there are betting houses in England that seem to take bets on just about any event, we could see what sort of odds they allow and base it on that. This is only a suggestion.) If all fails any particular prediction need not be part of the test. This is like saying there are plenty more where they come from". Only problem would be that if you were always objecting to a probability estimation, there may need to be a little extra time for the predictions to come about. Well this too is speculative.
I will endeavour to help you make the test absolutely fair on you. So far, I believe, what I have proposed is just about workable. I could give you some predictions and they may turn out wrong, but at least it has given us time to learn how to work out the probability problem.
Two years may seem like a long time but when you are making a prediction there is by implication an interval between the prediction and the outcome; e.g. the dream about the Bush v's Gore thing was in July and the election outcome, did they say in that article - December? See how 6 months could just fly. Obviously we will therefore require when the Challenge proper is underway, multiple predictions having been made before the time that even the first outcome may have come in.
Then we would have to make sure there is no further development altering the provisional outcome, e.g. what would have happened had Gore appealed that USA Supreme Court decision. There would be no final outcome till Gore had conceded completely. So unless I say it's a provisional outcome, it is the ultimate position that is the outcome. We are just about needing to become attorneys now as well as psychic, skeptic, and statisticians and hopefully historians!!
Do you feel we are getting close or is this going to go on for an excessive time. I don't mind taking the time, but there has to be progress being made. Indicate in each communication whether progress is being made please.
Robert de Boer
P.S. Was Louis M. Cable one of your associates? We have had communications before so he can vouch for my "delusion". Good guy on the email. I hope you know him.
We responded [Roberts text is in italics]:
Subject: Re: Psychic Challenge
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 21:36:15 -0500
From: John Blanton <[email protected]>
Organization: The North Texas Skeptics
To: Robert de Boer <[email protected]>Robert de Boer wrote:
John,Yes, progress is being made. You are set up to send me some predictions, and I will publish them on our Web site. Sound fine with me.Yes sorry about that, I was fatigued yesterday, long day followed by only 4 hours sleep.
I had made a concession in that last letter. I will allow you the first correct prediction "free". The test will only need commence if we can work out the probability of each event satisfactorily. If we thought there was no way of working out any individual prediction's probability then we suggest writing to an expert on the subject (eg there are betting houses in England that seem to take bets on just about any event, we could see what sort of odds they allow and base it on that. This is only a suggestion.) If all fails any particular prediction need not be part of the test. This is like saying there are plenty more where they come from". Only problem would be that if you were always objecting to a probability estimation, there may need to be a little extra time for the predictions to come about. Well this too is speculative.
I will endeavour to help you make the test absolutely fair on you. So far, I believe, what I have proposed is just about workable. I could give you some predictions and they may turn out wrong, but at least it has given us time to learn how to work out the probability problem.
Two years may seem like a long time but when you are making a prediction there is by implication an interval between the prediction and the outcome; e.g. the dream about the Bush v's Gore thing was in July and the election outcome, did they say in that article - December? See how 6 months could just fly. Obviously we will therefore require when the Challenge proper is underway, multiple predictions having been made before the time that even the first outcome may have come in.
Then we would have to make sure there is no further development altering the provisional outcome, e.g. what would have happened had Gore appealed that USA Supreme Court decision. There would be no final outcome till Gore had conceded completely. So unless I say it's a provisional outcome, it is the ultimate position that is the outcome. We are just about needing to become attorneys now as well as psychic, skeptic, and statisticians and hopefully historians!!
Do you feel we are getting close or is this going to go on for an excessive time. I don't mind taking the time, but there has to be progress being made. Indicate in each communication whether progress is being made please.
Robert de Boer P.S. Was Louis M. Cable one of your associates? We have had communications before so he can vouch for my "delusion". Good guy on the email. I hope you know him.No, I have never heard of Louis M. Cable.Best regards,
John Blanton
The North Texas Skeptics
http://www.ntskeptics.orgPrevious Round E-mail List Next Round