Impossible coin sequences?

[Thabiguy]

So if someone defies odds of better than 1 in a million (or perhaps even 1 in a billion) and wins the JREF Challenge, would you conclude that something paranormal happened, or that s/he just got lucky?

That's actually an interesting question, but wouldn't it be better to open a new thread where this could be discussed at length, rather than derailing this one?

 

[Rodney]

That's actually an interesting question, but wouldn't it be better to open a new thread where this could be discussed at length, rather than derailing this one?

I'm not sure it's a derail. I think everyone here, including Piggy, now accepts the fact that there are no "impossible" coin sequences. But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?

 

[Piggy]

So if someone defies odds of better than 1 in a million (or perhaps even 1 in a billion) and wins the JREF Challenge, would you conclude that something paranormal happened, or that s/he just got lucky?

Damned if I know. It would depend on what happened.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm not sure it's a derail. I think everyone here, including Piggy, now accepts the fact that there are no "impossible" coin sequences. But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?

So if something occurs that is not expected or understood, you think we should attribute it to "paranormal" -- whatever that's supposed to mean?
I prefer to look for logical and scientific explanations.

 

[Rodney]

So if something occurs that is not expected or understood, you think we should attribute it to "paranormal" -- whatever that's supposed to mean?
I prefer to look for logical and scientific explanations.

Fine, but if you can't find any logical and scientific explanation, do you conclude that the paranormal exists or that s/he just got lucky?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Fine, but if you can't find any logical and scientific explanation, do you conclude that the paranormal exists or that s/he just got lucky?

What does it mean to say that the paranormal exists?
Paranormal is used to describe a wide variety of stuff like tree spirits, mind reading, angels, witches and gods. What do you mean?
If an unlikely occurrence happens, what paranormal entity is responsible? The probability fairy?

 

[Roboramma]

I'm not sure it's a derail. I think everyone here, including Piggy, now accepts the fact that there are no "impossible" coin sequences. But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?

I would say that we've got a demonstration that it's likely that something is going on, and worth further study. Of course it's possible that he or she got lucky, but it's also possible that the world behaves differently than our current understanding suggests. A good place to begin scientific exploration of the phenomenon.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

But how does that fact relate to the way we view the world? For example, if someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by, say, correctly naming the first five cards drawn from a deck of cards lying face down, will the prevailing attitude here be that the paranormal has been demonstrated? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the first ten cards? If not, how about if s/he correctly names the entire deck?

If someone did that, the subsequent scientific studies would certainly be followed with interest.

 

[This is The End]

Here's an interesting question: How long a streak would allow us to judge the fairness of the coin-flips?

Yeah that sure is interesting... it's the OP of the month old thread that started this discussion... that you took part in!

Double Headed Coins and skepticism

From that thread's OP:

The idea is that I am tossing a coin and it keeps coming up heads - how many tosses before you conclude, reasonably, I'm cheating?

Sound familiar??

 

[This is The End]

A human flipping 100 heads in a row = possible.

Piggy's theory that, at some arbitrary point in a human flipping streak, the odds of heads becomes zero = impossible.

Post all you want, this will still be true.

 

[Rodney]

What does it mean to say that the paranormal exists?

One or more phenomena exist that science does not currently explain.

Paranormal is used to describe a wide variety of stuff like tree spirits, mind reading, angels, witches and gods. What do you mean?

In the example that I gave, it would be an apparent case of clairvoyance; i.e., perception outside the five senses.

If an unlikely occurrence happens, what paranormal entity is responsible? The probability fairy?

That's not the issue -- the issue is whether you would accept the paranormal as an explanation if the odds were sufficiently high against an event happening.

 

[Perpetual Student]

One or more phenomena exist that science does not currently explain.

If science cannot currently explain something, why would it be paranormal? Was the sun "paranormal" before science could explain its energy source? Was genetics "paranormal" before the discovery of DNA?

In the example that I gave, it would be an apparent case of clairvoyance; i.e., perception outside the five senses.

If something like that existed it would have a mechanism, a medium and a cause/effect basis. It would be subject to scientific analysis. Why would it be "paranormal"? Again -- you have not defined paranormal!

That's not the issue -- the issue is whether you would accept the paranormal as an explanation if the odds were sufficiently high against an event happening.

Causality has been demonstrated to be the only mode of behavior of the universe. The universe has also been demonstrated to behave utterly mathematically. Until you defined "paranormal" in a understandable manner -- so it can be tested within the context of scientific methods -- that question has no meaning.

 

[Rodney]

If science cannot currently explain something, why would it be paranormal? Was the sun "paranormal" before science could explain its energy source? Was genetics "paranormal" before the discovery of DNA?


If something like that existed it would have a mechanism, a medium and a cause/effect basis. It would be subject to scientific analysis. Why would it be "paranormal"? Again -- you have not defined paranormal!


Causality has been demonstrated to be the only mode of behavior of the universe. The universe has also been demonstrated to behave utterly mathematically. Until you defined "paranormal" in a understandable manner -- so it can be tested within the context of scientific methods -- that question has no meaning.

Okay, so let's leave the word "paranormal" out of the following hypothetical: Someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by correctly naming the order of all 52 cards of a face-down deck. What would your explanation be for that success?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Okay, so let's leave the word "paranormal" out of the following hypothetical: Someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by correctly naming the order of all 52 cards of a face-down deck. What would your explanation be for that success?

The probability of such a thing happening are about 1/8*10⁶⁷. Guessing 52 consecutive cards correctly would have a probability not unlike that of my atoms suddenly appearing on Mars (within the context of quantum theory).
The controls were not adequate. It was a trick!
If one were to claim some other explanation, one would have to demonstrate a mechanism and a causality.

 

[Rodney]

The probability of such a thing happening are about 1/8*10⁶⁷. Guessing 52 consecutive cards correctly would have a probability not unlike that of my atoms suddenly appearing on Mars (within the context of quantum theory).
The controls were not adequate. It was a trick!
If one were to claim some other explanation, one would have to demonstrate a mechanism and a causality.

Okay, so even though it is theoretically possible for someone to correctly guess the order of a deck of cards, you wouldn't take seriously the idea that could happen by chance. We agree there, which I think may distinguish us from some others here, but why would you think it would have to be a trick? Don't you think a mechanism and a causality could ultimately be demonstrated, even though they are currently unknown?

 

[drkitten]

Okay, so let's leave the word "paranormal" out of the following hypothetical: Someone wins the JREF Challenge in a tightly-controlled test by correctly naming the order of all 52 cards of a face-down deck. What would your explanation be for that success?

My explanation would be that he's a better magician than Randi expected him to be.

 

[drkitten]

\ why would you think it would have to be a trick? Don't you think a mechanism and a causality could ultimately be demonstrated, even though they are currently unknown?

"A trick" is both a mechanism and a causality.

Given that we know that tricks exist, and we know that new tricks are invented, I think that "a new trick" is a likely and parsimonious explanation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Okay, so even though it is theoretically possible for someone to correctly guess the order of a deck of cards, you wouldn't take seriously the idea that could happen by chance. We agree there, which I think may distinguish us from some others here, but why would you think it would have to be a trick? Don't you think a mechanism and a causality could ultimately be demonstrated, even though they are currently unknown?

No -- other than a trick.

 

[Rodney]

"A trick" is both a mechanism and a causality.

Given that we know that tricks exist, and we know that new tricks are invented, I think that "a new trick" is a likely and parsimonious explanation.

Except that the JREF has a vested interest in ensuring that the Challenge is not won by a trick.

 

[drkitten]

Except that the JREF has a vested interest in ensuring that the Challenge is not won by a trick.

So? Madoff had a vested interest in ensuring that he was not suspected of running a Ponzi scheme. Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean that it will....