Vision From Feeling

[Professor Yaffle]

What Anita says she can do with her ability will not always make the best test of her ability, but we do have to abide by the conditions under which she says it works.

Therefore a good solid test of some portion of her ability is better than a wider test of her ability which isn't as well designed/controlled.

Anita says she needs to see at least some portion of skin for her ability to work. If we test for any ailment that varies with age and sex, the test will be biased if her condition of visible skin is to be granted (if it is not to be granted, then there will be no test, because she says she can't do it otherwise). Therefore he best way to reduce the bias would to be either to choose an ailment which doesn't vary with age, or sex, and doesn't have any visible cues that might be picked up from the skin that is shown; or the pool of subjects should be restricted so that the differences between those with and without the ailment are as small as possible.

Tell me Locknar, if she could, under a blind protocol detect with 100% accuracy which men (out of a pool between the ages of 45 and 60 for example) had vasectomies - what would be wrong with that test? How could she have got the information by any normal route. If there is no way she could have gained that information by normal means, then it is a good test of the hypothesis that the is gaining information by means other than normal.

 

[Locknar]

Tell me Locknar, if she could, under a blind protocol detect with 100% accuracy which men (out of a pool between the ages of 45 and 60 for example) had vasectomies - what would be wrong with that test? How could she have got the information by any normal route. If there is no way she could have gained that information by normal means, then it is a good test of the hypothesis that the is gaining information by means other than normal.

There is nothing wrong with it. Though if the claim/criteria is "people" I see no reason to limit it to men only as far as potential test pool.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

There is nothing wrong with it. Though if the claim/criteria is "people" I see no reason to limit it to men only as far as potential test pool.

The reason to limit it is because not limiting it would bias the test in Anita's favour under the conditions she feels are essential for the test to go ahead.

 

[Locknar]

The reason to limit it is because not limiting it would bias the test in Anita's favour under the conditions she feels are essential for the test to go ahead.

In a blind test setting I disagree, though I'll concede the point (unless VFF has objection) and that the claim is "detect vasectomy in men" vs "people".

 

[quarky]

a bit off topic:

I have known several color blind men in my life. In retrospect, there is something very similar about them, other than their color-blindness. Its hard to put a label on it; subtle stuff.

I wonder if I could pick out the color blind men in a line-up of strangers?
Probably not, but I wouldn't be shocked if someone could. Perhaps the body language is slightly different in the color blind. Could be similar with men that have been fixed.

 

[Ashles]

What I want everyone to understand once and for all and without misconceptions is that I have not proven that I have ESP yet, nor have I claimed confidently to believe that I have ESP. What I have said is that there are reasons, and trust me there are, that allow for a further investigation into the possibility of ESP.

This I think is where you are not understanding our point of view.
'Trust me' is not an adequate reason for us to accept any paranormal claims or anecdotal evidence as described.
Your stories may be true, they may not be true - at the moment you could paste hundreds of pages of examples where you claim to have used this ability but it is not going to convince anyone here by itself. Testing will.
It appears as though you feel you can, by sheer force of will, make us accept that your stories are true, but that isn't how it works.

We are at an impasse until you perform independent testing which (however it may come across) I believe everyone here wants you to so, and succeed in.

But continually posting new stories and theories is not advancing your claim.

I don't see why there is criticism against proceeding toward further investigation.

Is there? I haven't seen criticism against further testing - everyone here seems keen for that to happen.

If you can accept that the anecdotal experiences I have listed did in fact occur in the exact way as I have described

No we can't. That's exactly the point. That's why independent testing is so important.
You seem as though you believe these experiences so we encourage you to test them as independently as possible.
Throughout this thread you seem to have interpreted experiences favourably after the fact so either way I think it is important for you to have this testing done as thoroughly as possible.
If you actually have this ability it will be a great platform for further testing and research.
If you do not have this ability it will demonstrate to you that less is happening than you think, with little room for post hoc rationalisation.

If we assume that it is more likely to not be the case of real ESP, then it should make sense to approach this in the way that I have, to put my ability to the test and try to make it fail. The thing is, the ability has not failed yet. So I have completed the first part of the investigation which I can do entirely on my own. I now need to proceed to the next step, by involving skeptics in the investigation.

Exactly.

I propose that the next step, with the skeptics, is to arrange simple tests that do not require much resources or effort in setting up, where the ability is given the opportunity to fail, and a non-ability would be revealed as such. Provided the ability performs well under those tests, we have still failed to dismiss a possible ability and can arrange further tests that involve more work in arrangements, until arriving at a test of scientific standard whose outcome will establish whether there is an ESP ability or not.

Again we are all agreed.

I do not agree with much of the criticism against how I have approached my investigation.

But as much for us as for you that is all irrelevant at this point.

Perform in the independent testing and it doesn't really matter how you did your own earlier testing. The independent testing will be far more compelling in forwarding your claim.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Old man:

I’m not talking about people who have gotten “used to it”. You claim that no one else you know has this ability. You do realize that people (especially young people) that have extraordinary (but normal) talent (i.e. math geniuses, Olympic athletes) get praise, recognition, even adulation, all of the time, don’t you?

I never get praise, recognition or adulation for this.

Regarding using a curtain – have you ever been able to detect people behind screens, or in adjacent rooms in the past? If not, I suspect using a curtain will ‘interfere’ with your readings.

I rarely encounter a situation where a person is behind a curtain and I'd pay any attention to them to receive the perceptions, so it is something I would need to set up and test specificly before I can answer whether it is possible to include in a test or not.

Now, on to your upcoming skeptics meeting. I know time is short, but if you do any readings at this meeting, please (as a control) do the first one just like you’ve been doing it in the past (i.e. the vasectomy guy), including getting feedback as you go (I believe that that’s the way you’ve been doing it).

This will confirm that your ability is working. Your test subject should, of course, have listed - in secret, in advance - what his known health problems/conditions are. Also, problems/conditions that are not confirmable WILL NOT COUNT. Then proceed with any ‘blind’ reading that you plan to do.

Actually, I would suggest skipping that. Rather than performing in the way I normally do in real life situations I would prefer to write down what I perceive and do it that way. These skeptics, if they agree to participating, are one of the best volunteers for this type of tests and I would hate to waste that by not applying some additional measures of ensuring the quality of the results. But actually (and watch out!) whether they agree to participate or not, I will see their insides anyway. There is no privacy when you're near me.

ETA: Good luck. I really do wish you the best.

Thank you.

Ocelot:

As such I rather you make it clear that in jumping to conclusions without evidence you're not a skeptic. Your simply someone who disbelieves. There's a difference and it's all to do with evidence. You make us look bad.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was under the impression that some of the comments here were not objective. I came here without any former encounter with skeptics, expecting people who are open minded, totally objective, good at spotting details, and who could offer a valuable perspective to my investigation. I was disappointed to find that many seemed to cling on to the idea that there are no psychics and that I am definitely not psychic, with the same passion that some non-psychics cling to the idea that they are, while I was trying to remain objective and in the middle since we don't have evidence for or against in my case. I was starting to question my definition of objective.

Anita, I for one won't hold it against you if you put ignorant arrogant idiots like this on ignore. UNfortunately they see their ignorant arrogant questions as entirely reasonable and will draw their own ignorant arrogant conclusions from your doing so.

I couldn't do that, I listen to all comments even ones that are hurtful, unfounded or just plain ridiculous because I need to be here. Even difficult skeptics are welcome, I couldn't discriminate. And I do recall Locknar making interesting comments and contributions. Besides he's been here with us all these 15 pages, and I want to see what he says once I present some evidence.

Me and my skeptics (Locknar is the one in the middle) ​

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Old man:
I never get praise, recognition or adulation for this.

If that was me, that would suggest to me that nobody was convinced I could do it. If I did this a number of times in front of the same person, it would be at least considered a heck of a good party trick.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

She may not have gone about falsifying her theory in the most rigorous, scientific way, but that doesn't mean that the theory is unfalsifiable. If she had proposed an unfalsifiable theory, no skeptics group would be setting up a test with her.

I didn't really express myself well. I agree her claim is falsifiable, but thus far she seems unwilling to have it falsified, in spite of evidence that it already has been.

The formal test is a smokescreen, and many are just being nicey-wicey to the woo-woo..

( Yeah, I know that's the way we're supposed to do it here, but I just can't seem to play the part of witting idiot this time around. )

 

[Ashles]

I came here without any former encounter with skeptics, expecting people who are open minded, totally objective, good at spotting details, and who could offer a valuable perspective to my investigation. I was disappointed to find that many seemed to cling on to the idea that there are no psychics and that I am definitely not psychic, with the same passion that some non-psychics cling to the idea that they are, while I was trying to remain objective and in the middle since we don't have evidence for or against in my case.

 

[ecarlson]

A Skeptic looking to test a claimant

Greetings, JREF forum. I was contacted by someone (VFF) who has posted here a lot, and claimed to have the ability to see various medical ailments using something beyond normal sight.

I'm the Eric Carlson in NC that was mentioned at some point.

I thought I'd jump in to the discussion. I haven't read through the whole thread.

At present I'm trying to discuss a protocol which can be followed to test the claimant's claims. Since she apparently doesn't believe her ability to identify chemicals is sufficiently reliable to test, I made some suggestions about medical tests. Medical tests are hard to conduct, so it may be a while (if ever) before we agree on a protocol.

I'm sure members of this forum could suggest such tests, and may come back and ask advice from you. But I think it's premature until the claimant makes more specific claims about what they can and can't do.

If you want to contact me outside this forum, I am ecarlson@wfu.edu. I'm not that experienced with posting in forums, and depending on my schedule may not come back soon.

Eric Carlson

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

JWideman:

You have to first have a falsifiable theory. "If I hit my thumb with this hammer, it will hurt" is a falsifiable theory. "If I hold this hammer in the air, a ghost will smack my thumb with it" is not.

I think it is a falsifiable theory. I state my perceptions and they are checked for accuracy. Provided that it is agreed that the perceptions in question are not detectable by normal perception, they are checked for accuracy, and statistics reveals the outcome of the test.

Locknar:

Asking (not demanding) why various options won't work is completely reasonable.

We already spent pages concluding that I am not entitled to discuss the "why" aspect of the perceptions. Let's not begin that again. I feel sorry for the people coming across this thread and having to read all these 15 pages with little interesting content. Let's keep the garbage at a minimum, for the sake of our readers.

And thank you for suggesting that I try screens, blindfolds, a dark room, etc, because if I am able to perform under those conditions then it would be a tremendous benefit for the sake of the test. I will try these conditions as soon as I can.

Personal attack; always the hallmark of intelligent debate.

Cats and dogs. Skeptics and psychics.

Diogenes:

Well , not really .. ( the falsifiable part ) Because she has already shown a pattern of counting the hits ( which could have been discerned by other means, the least of which , is guessing ) and ignoring the misses ..

I most certainly do not ignore misses when it comes to reporting my observations, provided that with "misses" you refer to incorrect information. In terms of not seeing an ailment that is supposed to be present, I am not able to detect everything and always, nor have I claimed to. I claim that when I do detect something it has a good accuracy.

Claiming you can observe atomic structures ( at the atomic level ) with the human senses, is neither reasonable or scientific.

Well perhaps then it is an Arcturian sense.

Moochie:

Well, VfF gets a pat on the back and a hearty, "Well done!" for remaining calm and composed in the face of relentless "enemy" fire.

Thank you. Someone has to behave.

Ashles:
My university and faculty are not involved in my personal investigation into the paranormal.

I have merely expressed an interest in Quantum Physics. Nowhere did I claim to have a thorough understanding of it. I was simply interested in the concept of matter understood in terms of vibration patterns.

Your degree also seems to keep jumping around as to what you are studying. Optics? QM? Calculus? It seems to develpop a new elective to back up whatever we are discussing at that moment.

Not at all, I am very consistent. I am studying all of the above. Would you require a comprehensive list of all the subjects I will be studying?

The unfortunate outcome is that, for several reasons, the more you post on a variety of non-core subjects (i.e. anything other than results from your testing and the upcming IIG test) the less credible you appear.

Credibility will be established from evidence provided by tests.

If you are genuine then I would again encourage you to concentrate on firming up a protocol with IIG. The meanderings on this thread are getting silly now and adding nothing to finding out whether you really have the ability you claim.

I have to respond to the criticism and questions. I guess I have to have the last word when someone says things that are incorrect.

I never said that the professor believed that I was truly gifted with ESP. All I said was that he listened, and suggested that perhaps it was the case of thermal information. I don't expect him to believe that I have an ESP ability especially since there is no evidence at this point. We were merely discussing the possibility.

Locknar:

There is nothing wrong with it. Though if the claim/criteria is "people" I see no reason to limit it to men only as far as potential test pool.

But Locknar, as soon as anything suggests to me that it is a female, I will know that she has not had a vasectomy. Could we stop suggesting that women are involved in a vasectomy detection test right this very instant? I hate to tell you but you are beginning to look a little bit ridiculous. How old are you?

quarky:

I have known several color blind men in my life. In retrospect, there is something very similar about them, other than their color-blindness. Its hard to put a label on it; subtle stuff.

I wonder if I could pick out the color blind men in a line-up of strangers?
Probably not, but I wouldn't be shocked if someone could. Perhaps the body language is slightly different in the color blind. Could be similar with men that have been fixed.

Very valuable point. However there should be plenty of health information that is not affected by this, I hope.

Ashles:

'Trust me' is not an adequate reason for us to accept any paranormal claims or anecdotal evidence as described.
Your stories may be true, they may not be true - at the moment you could paste hundreds of pages of examples where you claim to have used this ability but it is not going to convince anyone here by itself. Testing will.
It appears as though you feel you can, by sheer force of will, make us accept that your stories are true, but that isn't how it works.

But I know that! All I have said with my anecdotal evidence is that they are what have convinced me to proceed toward further testing! I have consistently stated that they are not evidence for any of you! All I have asked is that you accept that the anecdotal experiences are evidence for me! I'm about to leave. This is ridiculous. No one listens to me.

But continually posting new stories and theories is not advancing your claim.

Yes it is. I am providing examples that outline the specifics of my claim.

Perform in the independent testing and it doesn't really matter how you did your own earlier testing. The independent testing will be far more compelling in forwarding your claim.

And I know that. All I am saying is that my own testing have compelled me to further testing.

 

[Belz...]

There's so many of you and only one of me.

This is usually the case when you suppose fringe claims. It's often a clear indication that something's wrong with your ideas.

A test with skeptics will eliminate this concern.

From experience, I seriously doubt it.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but, I have failed to dismiss the possibility of an ability.

You never will. Which is why you need to show that you DO have it, not the other way around.

 

[Ashles]

Could the element identification test not be done the same way as proposed for the medical test?

That is to say that a number of chemicals are presented and Anita only identifies the ones where she is sure her ability is working.

In my opinion if she can't even do that then I am not sure how she has got the impression she can identify chemicals by sight in the first place.

This all seems a very long way from the start of the thread where it was claimed:

All on my own and independently by using this ability I have obtained information about chemistry, materials, plants, animals, bacteria, foods and medicines that I did not know prior and that could not have been guessed to such detail. What compels me is also that I am so certain of the information when I perceive it. I do not have a single example of when I would have been incorrect.

This has clearly changed as now it appears that information received about chemistry, materials and medicines obviously isn't reliable enough to test.

I never touch the chemicals to know what the molecules are, and in most cases when I obtain information about chemistry it involves molecules that are invisible to the eye, do not show any visible sign of their presence, and are impossible to detect by touching with hands or by using any of the other normal human senses of perception.

But this isn't reliable enough to provide results above chance? Even if it is agreed that you may pass on any chemicals where you feel unsure?

It seems that I need to look at the objects that I am viewing, even if only for a quick glance, possibly in order to know where their location is. Note however that most of the information I obtain is not derived from what I saw by looking at the objects in question. The information is most often too small, or hidden behind or beneath something that obscures it from view, as well as having no externally detectable signals.

But not a blindfold?
Can a sheet be draped over the person? You did say:

It seems that I need to see where the object is in order to locate the source of the information. Most of the time I only take a quick glance to "download the information" and then look away to concentrate on the information and analyze it further in my thoughts. I would be less successful if the object was behind a screen or a door such that I could not see its outline or exact placement.

So all you need is the outline?
So would a sheet be acceptable?

I have tested myself on identifying materials that are concealed in non-opaque containers, but it can take me longer and it is harder to obtain the information.

Again, you say you have tested yourself and "do not have a single example of when I would have been incorrect" but that seems at odds with this claim.
(All bolding mine)

 

[Locknar]

Locknar:
But Locknar, as soon as anything suggests to me that it is a female, I will know that she has not had a vasectomy. Could we stop suggesting that women are involved in a vasectomy detection test right this very instant? I hate to tell you but you are beginning to look a little bit ridiculous. How old are you?

Yes...if you knew the test subject were female the answer would be obvious; in a sufficiently blind test you would have no insight into the gender except for your "vision"

That said, if your claim is (as previously mentioned) "detect vasectomy in men", or if a sufficiently blind test criteria can not be established, it is a moot point.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
I have merely expressed an interest in Quantum Physics. Nowhere did I claim to have a thorough understanding of it. I was simply interested in the concept of matter understood in terms of vibration patterns.
Not at all, I am very consistent. I am studying all of the above. Would you require a comprehensive list of all the subjects I will be studying?

This is a genuine question as I am unsure as to how degrees work in North Carolina.

You say you are studying for a B.S. in Chemistry and another B.S. in Optical Science, you are also studying (as it appears from flicking through this thread) Quantum Mechanics, Calculus, Human anatomy, Physics, and Medicine. Are there others? Have I added some not there?
To what depth are each of these subjects visited?
Which do you feel strongest in at the moment? (Feel free to ignore this question if you feel it is too personal, I just feel that discussions in certain areas aren't going anywhere and it might be more fruitful to concentrate on any areas where you feel stronger)

 

[Ashles]

Locknar:
But Locknar, as soon as anything suggests to me that it is a female, I will know that she has not had a vasectomy. Could we stop suggesting that women are involved in a vasectomy detection test right this very instant? I hate to tell you but you are beginning to look a little bit ridiculous. How old are you?

To be fair this is a perfectly valid suggestion by Locknar. If the test is set up so that, for example, the subject is covered by a sheet, or you only saw a section of skin the lack of knowledge about the subject's gender would add to the strength of a correct identification.
Conversely it would be evidence against the ability if you could not identify between the sexes.

Actually could that be a test? Could you identify the gender of a person covered in a sheet? Or from a small area of visible skin (say the side of the waist perhaps?)


(ETA: I just looked at the IIG website - The discussion around the protocol has been going on since December 2007???)

 

[JWideman]

JWideman:
I think it is a falsifiable theory. I state my perceptions and they are checked for accuracy. Provided that it is agreed that the perceptions in question are not detectable by normal perception, they are checked for accuracy, and statistics reveals the outcome of the test.

Scientists accept alternative explanations for a phenomena and control for them. You seem to have trouble with this.
My original point, and it has gotten somewhat sidetracked, is that the onus is on you to prove you have this ability, and not on us to prove you don't. Saying "tests haven't proved I'm not psychic" is much like saying "tests haven't proved there's no Bigfoot".
You've taken several informal tests so far. In each case, you've had the opportunity to first say "I can't do it this way". Instead, you continued with the test and failed. And if that routine with counting the misses as hits is any indication, it's clear how you've convinced yourself that you have this ability. Thus, it is doubtful that you will accept even failing a formal test.

 

[JWideman]

Yes...if you knew the test subject were female the answer would be obvious; in a sufficiently blind test you would have no insight into the gender except for your "vision"

That said, if your claim is (as previously mentioned) "detect vasectomy in men", or if a sufficiently blind test criteria can not be established, it is a moot point.

It's obvious you're just splitting hairs. To what end?