psychic chess masters

I am perfectly lucid.  He basically said that the idea that people have uncanny concidences that seem inexplicable by probability alone are explained by the proability that there will be inexplicable coincidences.  But he didn't address the high frequency of all the highly improbable coincidences, which blow away the flimsy meaningless statistic he pulled out of his butt.

Citation needed on high frequency of improbable coincidences.

Ubiquitous claims of things including my example and things similar, of, for example, people thinking about someone and then that person calls them out of the blue after long periods of time, so rarely, or in a scenario that  plays out far too  frequently to be random coincidences (e.g. in ways that make it extremely statistically unlikely) are case in point... It happens to most people sometimes and some people many times.  Basically, that extreme improbability happens all the time.   I would be willing to bet it happens far more frequently than his statistic affords, but how could I prove that other than anecdotally?  

Anyway, how can he refute a claim using a statistic, without knowing the statistical basis of the claim?  If none of us knows the approximate frequency of frequently touted odd phenomena, then the best you can say is it has yet to be determined, and none of my posts have claimed otherwise.  So what has been refuted other than the viability of his and subsequently your objection?

Reversal of the charge of the proof.

YOU claim something happens (in this case, "rare events / prescience more often than usual / than probabilities would predict", YOU have to provide the data to back it up.

Otherwise, the Loch Ness monster exists.

I cited anecdotal evidence that nearly everyone can relate to - everyone has experienced such phenomena inumerable times in their lives (and by that I mean, it has happened many times to most people, by their own recollection, I assert).

All I ever claimed is what most people can vouch for.  If you want to argue against the memory and common sense of just about everyone, go ahead, but it won't get you anywhere.  I'm saying something we all basically know is true and happens too often to be generally thought of as coincidence.  I made no other claim.  If you think your statistic shoots that down, you're welcome, unconvincingly, to your opinion.

Lol. "Common sense" is that there are paranormal phenomena, sure.

And besides this, common sense is that the Sun revolves around the Earth, too. If the Earth moved, we would feel it. Duh. Why would you argue it can be otherwise, unless you are an idiot !

I believe you started the argument. I was careful in my original post and the one you argued with to not assert too much.  Are you saying your whole challenge was pointless?

The decision about who started the argument is left as an exercise for the reader.

Hint : #255 :

And while they are doing so, they should go to your original reply in this line that created the initial challenges, which started the debate:

IronicKitty wrote:

============================ QUOTE ==========================

The key explanation here is :

It would be highly improbable that not a single improbable event ever happens.

I can predict for example the following thing : "in the next two years, an influential political figure in the US will reveal his/her unexpected homosexuality". My chances of failure are very slim, despite the apparent unlikelyhood of such a thing.

Why so ?

Because I did not say which person will do so. Assuming there are 5000 political figures considered as influential in the US (if you take into account journalists, bloggers, etc. it's easy to get there) and each of them has a probability of 1/1000 to fulfill my prediction, my probability of success is 1-(0.999^5000) = 99.3%.

If you want to make it even better for me, replace the outing by "will have a serious accident", where I left a door to discuss forever after the prediction about what is or is not a serious accident, pure "psychic"-style.

 ============================ END QUOTE ==========================

I predict I will win a chess match soon.

Some more evidence:

1. Spock plays 3D chess
    
2. Spock is brilliant and highly logical so it is safe to say he plays a damned good game of chess.
    
3. Spock can do mind melds and is therefore psychic
    
4. Therefore there are psychic chess masters.

Also, X-Men .... yet more evidence of chess playing people with paranormal abilities.

I knew I was going to post this, right before I posted this:

Like some of the post here.

I have to say this and many may agree.

I have enough problems figuring out what should be my next move so how would being psychic help as now i have the added work of figuring out what they think is their next best move which can change in a split of a sec. Then add in what is their best me i see on the board and i how i reply to it.

I predict that i pedicted what i predicted before i could predict it. Hey i also predict that your next couple opponents when on white they play d4, e4 or Nf3!

Yes, fictional accounts totally qualify as evidence.

Anecdotes are not evidence, sorry. Thanks for playing.

Ubik42 wrote:

  "Anecdotes are not evidence, sorry. Thanks for playing."

You quoted all of that stuff up above, just to keep that stupid trolling alive?   Your buddy (the guy you are so infatuated with) cited a statistic, a percentage of a number none of us knows or has any solid data on, so there's no conclusive evidence of anything presented by anyone.  And I'm just saying my evidence is the best because it's something most people have experienced and can relate to - a very common statistically improbable kind of coincidence that typically makes people wonder if there's more to it than coincidence.  If you want to troll it like a baby all night and keep recopying pages of text pointlessly go ahead, but that's on you.  I tried to reset the whole thing and forget it.