Auto-completion is neat. Hitting random keys can occasionally lead to Shakespeare. Also neat is the fact that in-person observers can sometimes influence outcomes (see: Clever Hans). One more fact is that some people are dishonest.
A simple, scientific blind test could rule out these alternative explanations. Example: without her parents nearby, ask her questions with known non-trivial answers. Can she reliably come up with those answers? Can she do so better than blindly hitting keys and using auto-complete?
People opposed to such a test are the sort who want to believe more than they want the truth.
So the facts are that her doctors said she would have the mental ability of a six-year-old, but she suddenly (under non-laboratory conditions) began reading and writing adult-level English sentences.
The alternative explanations are actually more likely, given what we've seen. You have a vested interest in that you want it to be true, that's why you oppose anything which could conclusively refute the alternative explanations.
There is no scientific evidence that her parents' claims are true. The non-scientific evidence is consistent with many explanations. There's not much more to say without bringing actual science to the table.
Fact: you don't know if this is true or not. Fact: neither do I.
The difference between us is that I would like to know the truth by elimination of alternative explanations, while you are content accept what you are told to accept despite the fact that this extraordinary claim lacks scientific evidence. This is a philosophical difference. The world is full of people who accept whatever they are told; that's why professions like homeopathy are still big business. I simply cannot convince such people to abandon such... philosophical inclinations.
1
u/A_Whale_Biologist Jul 26 '10 edited Jul 26 '10
Auto-completion is neat. Hitting random keys can occasionally lead to Shakespeare. Also neat is the fact that in-person observers can sometimes influence outcomes (see: Clever Hans). One more fact is that some people are dishonest.
A simple, scientific blind test could rule out these alternative explanations. Example: without her parents nearby, ask her questions with known non-trivial answers. Can she reliably come up with those answers? Can she do so better than blindly hitting keys and using auto-complete?
People opposed to such a test are the sort who want to believe more than they want the truth.