scientific double blinded cable test

These are like "which oil?" threads on any given car enthusiast forum. They continually appear.

There is a good case for locking such threads as soon as they emerge. They cause a lot of emotions to flow and most of it is damaging to the membership, no matter what position one may have on the subject.

The op is shown a link to where to look to get their satisfaction in the question or at least what satisfaction can be found, and the thread gets locked. Ie, the question is asked so often that a set answer is put in place, the op is directed to it --thread locked. Like real forums do, in order to keep the peace and keep the membership.

Some forums are now going to the level of not allowing debate about cables making a difference or not, or double blind tests demanded, etc. That the cable forum area on those forums...is for people who believe that cables make a difference. Any other posting is stopped immediately and people are given various warning and suspensions for intruding in the cable qualities discussion area.

Makes perfect sense. People can get on with their lives without being attacked.

You can probably be trained to hear them.

Afterward you will be ruined. Like finding flaws in people whom you had the greatest amount of respect for, prior.

Randi’s testing regimen was looked at by people who design scientific testing regimens.

It was found to be so badly built, that if it was applied in real science and real proofing procedures, that ... not one single drug or substance would ever be made available to humanity---- as all being tested would fail. All.

The test was not even remotely properly built. That’s what you find when you look under the hood of the challenge. Surprise!

It’s all this looking at the surface of things, combined with accepting the first answer, or deciding on the first formulated question, etc....such is the mindset that dooms the average person from ever reaching satisfaction in understanding the world.

’Good enough’ does not apply in researching any aspect of advanced understandings which might go beyond the common and mundane.

As for any $25k challenge: it would only apply to two people: those two who are involved. Outside of that, it would be a waste of time and money.

I was merely providing a research pathway, as there is no simple answer, only complex ones that take time to discern.

As well, as you might and probably do know, there is no way to communicate a complex long form answer to a question..to another..that those individuals will have to put the work in themselves.

The end game is that entrenched positions of individuals as compared to a group....simply do not bring about change en masse. The given entrenched position changes one person at a time, like grains of sand on a beach.

Which is why any $25k challenge will be a waste of time, for both parties and for anyone else outside of a few given potential attendees.

for example beyond all the complexities of the quality of the test, and so on....there  is something more problematic. Something a layer deeper in or down. Something that is most difficult to swallow, or deal with is that objectivity has been scientifically proven, through and by hundreds of vetted tests, to be a non existent thing. This is now coming at us, as a group, from multiple directions in finished works and cutting edge physics revelations.

Point being, that an ’objective test’ now has to be modified to deal with the new understandings of the fundamentals around the now falsified idea of objectivity. Otherwise the regimen as it stands ---is likely to be found as invalid.

Getting the people involved to understand that new emergent fundamental (objectivity being falsified), is going to be tough sledding at best. How does one get objectivity in science to reform itself? Fundamentally? It’s a human ego/emotions/hind-brain problem, not just a complex and deep question of logic and data. The problem has never been the logic or idea of logic, it has always been the human filter and carrier.

As usual, it is more complex than it looks.

@nugat

It’s not a concern for their particular forms of use.


@Geoff

As for Randi’s lack of validity, that is easy to find on the interwebs. I cannot immediately find the web link for the ’scientific regimen’ test designing dude’s report on Randi’s test, but here’s quite the bit of damning evidence in just one article out of what is likely to be more than a few.

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/randis-million-dollar-challenge/

Maybe some day, Geoff, you’ll have a real non-slippery comment.

Or something to that effect.

Non slippery? My comments are the only ones that aren’t slippery. Maybe if you tried speaking plain English someone could respond. Who knows?

Plain English has no chance. Complex English does. Except it has to be pursued by the reader to the ends of their own psychological limits.... otherwise nothing comes through. Ie, one has to elevate themselves to the question and answer set. It is already as simplified as it can be and that is noted to be quite ineffective. Questions and answers equal one another.

And the answer to the question is complex and defeats most people's ideas on their fundamentals of reality and what they are - what this place is.

Which is already a complex enough statement to have someone come along and post a ridiculing stab in the back bit directed right at me. Just so their mind does not have to do anything that threatens their comforts in knowing who and what they are. Like I note you have already done, for whatever given reason, be it ignorance or determined act..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, just to allow myself to be ridiculed and stabbed at again, for a few more posts or in some other thread I may contribute to...:

A simple way to discern the final answer on the objectivity front, is...: God, or the universe, if you will... can both prove and disprove it’s own existence and both conditions are scientifically valid and true. Simultaneously.

The data set is many thousands of pages deep, in it’s entirety, and many studies and a few meta studies deep. Then the emergent physics that says the same. The problem is not the data, is the complexity of the persons involved in it’s understanding... in their given ’life’.

It’s not something I came up with. Or that I promote openly... as too many people will run at it as if it is a windmill they need to charge and attack/kill.

It is forums that we are communicating on or via.. We’re dealing with individualized cases of crowd psychosis that tend to be applied in Machiavellian fashion. There’s no possible form a win for anyone, here.

You can’t honest a cheating man.

(I've no idea of the prior conversation, I'm just having a bit of fun in wordplay)