• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

THOMAS BOWE, Astrologer

Check out further in the thread.

RemieV said:
Thomas believes it will take too long to use ten dates for each photograph, as it would mean running through the facial characteristics associated with each date and comparing them to the photograph one at a time.

Since this stipulation would mean we'd need thousands of driver's license photographs, we are in talks with Thomas to find out whether or not he could use any number of dates greater than two.
Click to expand...

Going the straight 50/50 route would have required so many licenses as to really burden down the test, essentially rendering it untestable. That's why JREF asked him if he could spot the right birthdate out of more than just two possibilities -- to allow for a quicker test. He couldn't do it, so the file was closed.

Edited to add: Welcome to the Forum! : )
 
Last edited:
Hi JackalGirl,

I'm not familiar with the rules of the game but if he tried 100 id's at 50/50 then the sigma of the trial is 5. This means that if he gets 75 or more right the random chance is about 1 in a million. Do this 4 times if you want and the odds of repeated accidental success are 10sigma (ie astronomical). This only takes 400 pictures.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a statistician (I can barely count, to be honest), so I have no real answer for you. I'm sure, though, that someone better qualified to discuss the details will come along soon. I can only quote the result of that thread, which was that the claim was deemed untestable. Sorry I can't be of more help!
 
GeoffCapes said:
Sort of. Why, are you a fan?
Click to expand...

Fan doesn't begin to describe it!

I'm 10 years younger than you and have been a lifelong discus & shot put competitor. You were my sports role model as a kid. Your gold at Christchurch in 1974 is one my sports highlights.

Brilliant to meet you at last - even if only electronically.
 
Just to get back on track, I see no reason for declining the 50:50 shot.

If the astrologer can get 20/20 right, that's 1,048,576 odds at even money.

I'm not sure I can figure how the "thousands of licences" comes into it. If JREF is insisting on odds far greater than 1,000,000:1, I'd say that's a little unfair, unless he's looking at a pass rate of under 100%.

My maths would be defeated by that idea.
 
Maybe they could use 3 dates? Assuming he decides to re-apply, which is unlikely.
 
Apparently he won't use more than two options.

I'd love someone to explain what the problem with that is.
 
Here is a simple explanation. Some people do not understand probability theory. Another one is that some people do not want to take the test.
 
rjh01 said:
Here is a simple explanation. Some people do not understand probability theory. Another one is that some people do not want to take the test.
Click to expand...

What, you mean the way the they all actually know that they're lying, cheating scumbags with no chance of actually beating a fair test?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom