Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

I keep saying that you have not done enough homework to justify asking other people to develop rigorous tests on your behalf. Your most recent anecdotes clearly indicate that you are not taking the rigorous approach expected of a self-proclaimed scientist.

Last night I attempted psychic medical diagnose on a person. I described many specifics of his body. Several missing teeth in a row in the upper right side of the jaw. Described his sense of loosing track of time, day and month sometimes accompanied by a mild sense of confusion. Described a condition which he told me is exactly what his sinus drainage does. Told him he can not eat under stress and described how the stomach responds. Told him exactly what bones and joints ache and have discomfort, and which ones were fine. Plenty of various information. He confirmed that all was correct. We only had one bit of information that was not confirmed as accurate, nor was it confirmed as inaccurate, we could not determine the accuracy of whether food gets stuck sometimes in the horizontal part of the large intestine as temporary and reccurring constipation. I described that when he needs to pee, there is a very significant tingling tickling sensation in the top of the bladder. He laughed and said that was absolutely correct. I certainly do not have such a sensation, nor have I come across this specific health aspect before.

Note: Please do NOT answer these questions now. It's too late - the test is over. Please answer only the questions at the very end. My questions about this *specific* reading are rhetorical in nature and are only meant to show to you your lack of a scientific approach.

Seriously. Do not quote and respond to my analysis of this specific reading. It will only get us sidetracked. Use the information for future tests, but please don't explain or defend the reading I have analyzed.

Here's my analysis:

Information you should have told us up front:

1) When did you first meet this person?
2) Did you speak with him at all before making any claims?
3) How much time did you spend with him before making any claims?
4) How did you know this person?
5) How old was this person?
6) What were the circumstances? Was it during conversation? Did you tell him it was a test?
7) Did you include an false positives to eliminate him just humoring you? What were they?

Your anecdote is USELESS without including that information up front.

Now, on to your specific claims:

1) Missing teeth can be detected visually by seeing inside the mouth or with the shape of the cheeks. Chewing habits are a good indicator as are other more obvious issues with tooth decay. Age is also a factor.

2) Losing track of time: How does this dovetail with your claims of detecting illnesses in the structure of the body? This is more of a personality trait, and it is not unusual. A person's demeanor in your presence could easily lead to making this guess.

3) Sinus drainage. Was the guy a smoker (easy to tell even if he didn't say so)? Most smokers have sinus issues. Allergies are common enough to make sinus drainage not unusual. Hell, how many different ways can the sinuses drain? Congestion is easy to detect through normal means.

4) Not eating under stress. Duh! That's a very common problem. Google Stress Digestive System and learn all about it.

5) Various aches and pains. If you have seen someone move, it is easy to guess what joints ache and do not ache.

6) He needed to pee. Most people urinate once every three to five hours, so odds are pretty good that if you've spent a little time around someone, they will need to pee. Was he drinking at the time? Was he fidgeting?

7) Large intestine blockage. Worthless to even mention. Of *course* it does if he has issues of stress.

Now, how about your attempts at confirmation? Once again, confirmation comes after the fact. Did you visually inspect his teeth? If so, a scientist would have mentioned that important detail.

I don't I am being presumptuous when I say that if you want to impress us, you should have done the following:

1) Provided all of the details I asked about the person in question.

2) Not spoken to the person.

3) Asked the person in advance to write down their specific ailments.

6) Upon first meeting the person simply looked at him and made your reading.

5) Written down your readings about the person's ailments.

6) Posted his exact words and your exact words without any claims on your part about what constituted a hit or miss.

These are questions I would like you to answer:

I put the ball in your court. Why do you deserve Randi's time, the IIG's time, or the skeptic group's time in testing your claim(s) when you have not taken the rudimentary steps outlined above to provide anecdotes that at least have *some* meaning?

Or to put it another way, what attempts have you made to eliminate the ordinary to justify testing the extraordinary?

If you do that, I can tell you what will happen next if your readings are highly accurate: People will question your honesty. Get over it. The only response you will need to make then is, "I think I've done all I can on my own to provide reliable data. Therefore, I am asking for some help."

Another reaction will be, "That's great. Now let's get some experts involved in helping you perform these tests."

Isn't that what you want?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It'd make a shambles of protocol negotiations and fuel potential claimants excuses about skeptics unreasonable expectations.

To paraphrase an example Randi used at one time -

What is unreasonable about expecting someone who claims they can play a violin, to actually play the violin?


Simply put - Claimant states what they can do - then does it ( under controlled ( supervised ) conditions ) .


VFF has made many claims - but then waffles about what she can really do ..

So far, it seems to hinge on being asked to do something that goes beyond guessing..

 

[Ashles]

Unca Yimmy is right - it seems you are concentrating on doing tests which are entirely unscientific, unblinded, not methodical and open to huge interpretation.
And of course we have no way of knowing what other people you have asked about medical conditions but been incorrect about. You may even have done so but rationalised their responses as somehow not a real test.
we just don't know.

The point is these reports are of no use.

Running the cereal experiment suggested by Old Man would be a far better use of time if you are interested in testing your ability even vaguely scientifically.

This may be why, after a year of contact with IIG, you are no nearer to testing.

 

[Old man]

To paraphrase an example Randi used at one time -

What is unreasonable about expecting someone who claims they can play a violin, to actually play the violin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0MXU3J6Qbs

 

[Pup]

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.

But the benefit of testing medical things like vasectomies, appendectomies, circumcisions and so forth is that, in general, there are no obvious outward signs, from just looking at a clothed individual. The problem of demographics can be solved by limiting the pool to men in their 40s, or whatever.

Seems like including women in the pool just eliminates that benefit, for no apparent reason.

 

[Locknar]

Locknar anybody can tell whether a woman has had a vasecotmy or not. The answer is allways no.

In a sufficiently blind test setting, where gender can not be determined - no.

If all I can see is a six inch square of someone's back I don't know how I'd tell whether it was a 45 year old man with a vasectomy or a 45 year old man with no vasectomy. However I can think of quite a few cues that might help me tell the difference between a 45 year old man and an 18 year old girl.

Agreed, in that if there were enough cues...in which case the test would not be sufficiently blind.

That said, Ashles has done a excellent job in re-caping VFFs claims in posts 595 and 607 of this thread. Notice where VFF claims that if the cloth (such as clothing) was in contact with the skin that was sufficient.

Suggesting that women shold be test subjects in a test to detect vasectomies is daft. <snip>

Suggesting that women should be included in the pool of test subjects who've had vasectomies is monumentaly stupid. It implies that you think that there are women who have had vasectomies. <snip>

I've suggested nothing of the sort. Rather the test pool I've outlined is based soley on the claim - "I can detect vacestomies in people."

"People" includes men, women, young, old, etc. Science is exact, the claim needs to be as well.

If I have missed where she has quantified her claim, ie. "men" vs "people", then I stand corrected and would gladly yield the point.

If she means "men" she needs to say that.

The only practical consequence I can see of adding women and children to the group is that the blinding required would make it impossible even for someone for whom Anita's claim was true. You'd need to stop them from being able to see any part of the subject when they've clearly stipulated that this is something they need.

It may very well not be possible or reasonable to design a sufficiently blind test, in which case the point is moot.

That said, posts 595 and 607 (based on VFFs claims) leave the door open and I feel a blind testing scenario is possible.

If that were your purpose, to set up a test protocol that you know the claimant will reject, then that's not playing fair. It'd make a shambles of protocol negotiations and fuel potential claimants excuses about skeptics unreasonable expectations.

My purpose is/was to outline a blind testing scenario based on the claim, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Seems like including women in the pool just eliminates that benefit, for no apparent reason.

Benefit for whom ?
The apparent reason would be to see if VFF incorrectly detects vasectomies having been performed on women ...

With all her astounding abilities, are we to believe she can't even differentiate between male and female ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But the benefit of testing medical things like vasectomies, appendectomies, circumcisions and so forth is that, in general, there are no obvious outward signs, from just looking at a clothed individual.

Can you please explain what would be the benefit of detecting these things, at all ?

 

[Ocelot]

To paraphrase an example Randi used at one time -

What is unreasonable about expecting someone who claims they can play a violin, to actually play the violin?

Nothing but if that's what Locknar was doing I'm very much mistaken. Anita said she needs visible skin for her ability to work. Locknar wanted a blindfold, a curtain or a hood. The purpose of which was apparently to stop her from being able to tell whether it was man, woman, child or anybody at all being presented to her in a test to detect whetehr the subject had a vasectomy. This was after a more sensible proposal was given. BOth the people with the vasecotomies and the people without would consist of groups of males in a similar age band. No blindfold, hood or curtain required. Thus it fit with her claim.

Locknar's suggestion was more like asking someone who claims to play violin to do so with their hands tied behind their back simply because you've made the assumption that this is how their violin playing ability must work despite their clear statements to the contrary.


Simply put - Claimant states what they can do - then does it ( under controlled ( supervised ) conditions ) .

VFF has made many claims - but then waffles about what she can really do ..

I have to disagree. She has made one clear primary claim for which a protocol has been proposed by the IIG and agreed by Anita. She is by far the most coherrent and willing to participate claimant I've seen on these boards. She has relayed further subjective experiences and been invited to speculate further about other areas where she is not so certain, and has done so. Where you see waffle I see her trying to accomodate every single request for more information being made by the numerous skeptics, debunkers and jeering boo boys on this board.

 

[Ocelot]

Locknar.

Blind testing doesn't mean can't see. If I'm presented in a tast test with two glasses of cola which are visually identical then that's a blind test. I don't need to be blindfolded it justs needs to be certain that I'm given no clues other than the taste as to which is brand X.

Likewise if I'm presented with two people who are outwardly identical in every way and asked to tell which has a vasectomy then that is a blind test.

The test I outlined can be sufficiently blinded on it's own without needing a blindfold, hood or curtain.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I've suggested nothing of the sort. Rather the test pool is baseds oley on the claim - "I can detect vacestomies in people."

"People" includes men, women, young, old, etc. Science is exact, the claim needs to be as well.

If I have missed where she has quantified her claim, ie. "men" vs "people", then I stand corrected.

If she means "men" she needs to say that.

You want to play the "be scientific" game? Okay, let's go.

It is a well known scientific fact that no woman has ever gotten a vasectomy. Therefore, it is impossible to detect a vasectomy in a woman. Thus, any claim to be able to detect a vasectomy must be definition preclude detecting them in women.

She did not claim to be able to detect when a person has *not* received a vasectomy. She did not claim to be able to detect every vasectomy she encounters.

Now, as a scientist you may want to consider including females in the test as part of the control. But any good scientist would consider that since no females can possibly have a vasectomy that *any* flaw in the gender blinding will allow the claimant to identify people in the control group. And since using only males does not pose any special burden when gathering subjects, a scientist would quickly dismiss the idea as having no value whatsoever.

I can't want until the breast implants discussion. I suppose you'll suggest we include male infants as part of the control since she didn't specifically exclude them.

I'm sorry to sound short with you, but from where I sit this part of the discussion seems to be more about you saving face than actually trying to develop a useful protocol.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, are you arguing that "praise", "adulation" and "recognition" are not forms of attention?

No, old strawman, I'm most certainly not.

Let's try this again:

If VfF said "I'm not getting any Fords out of this" and you said "well, you certainly are getting at least one car" I would be quite right in pointing out that this is not what was said.

 

[Locknar]

Now, as a scientist you may want to consider including females in the test as part of the control. But any good scientist would consider that since no females can possibly have a vasectomy that *any* flaw in the gender blinding will allow the claimant to identify people in the control group. And since using only males does not pose any special burden when gathering subjects, a scientist would quickly dismiss the idea as having no value whatsoever.

I'd think the goal would be to develop a test to meet the claim/criteria.

The claim is currently "I can detect vasectomies in people" (if she has quantified her claim to "men" please tell me where); if you want to assume this limits the pool to a subset of "people"...well, you know what they say about assuming.

I have been clear that the inclusion of women (being "people", last I checked) was dependent on sufficient gender blinding.

 

[Locknar]

The test I outlined can be sufficiently blinded on it's own without needing a blindfold, hood or curtain.

Yes, and? I don't recall disagreeing....

Though, given that she has also claimed (as Ashles points out) that, cloth/clothing can be a conducter for her "power" as long as it is in contact with the person in question....why wouldn't a curtain work, or a person with a sheet over them?

I'd argue that provides for better blinding, and allows for more of a test group representative of the claim - ie. "people".

 

[quarky]

Reading this thread has destroyed all my psychic abilities.

Its like trying to get an erection during a discussion about baseball.

(I hope VFF is taking this into consideration.)

Paranormal abilities get shy around scrutiny; same with my singing abilities.

(sorry; must play devil's advocate)

extra-sensitive people can be talked out of their extra-sensitiveness, much like rational people can be talked into believing woo.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'd think the goal would be to develop a test to meet the claim/criteria.

You'd think, huh?

The claim is currently "I can detect vasectomies in people" (if she has quantified her claim to "men" please tell me where); if you want to assume this limits the pool to a subset of "people"...well, you know what they say about assuming.

Where exactly did you see the specific claim in quotes? Can you point me to the specific message? I am unable to find it.

I have been clear that the inclusion of women (being "people", last I checked) was dependent on sufficient gender blinding.

disingenuous - lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Guys...

For those not treating every post as a legal document, it is a given that--since only men have vas deferens--only men can have vasectomies. And, lest it come into the discussion, it is implied as well that only males can be circumcised (certain African practices notwithstanding). Similarly, any discussion of hysterectomies can be limited to women. Now, can we just let the nit-picking over this issue go, please?

The point sort of lost in the argument here is that there is an amply testable claim here; and a relatively easy to recruit set of subjects. If men of middle age (for vasectomies) can walk in, be viewed (without knowing what VfF is looking for) and then check off the boxes on a card for "Have you had any of the following: Appendectomy (Y/N); Tonsilectomy (Y/N); Vasectomy (Y/N)", and the results be compared to VfF's results, that's a nice clear comparison.

And given the odds of someone in the skeptic group having had an appendectomy or their tonsils out, that might be testable in the first contact, thus reducing the odds of any background knowledge on Anita's part.

Just my thoughts, MK

 

[Uncayimmy]

The point sort of lost in the argument here is that there is an amply testable claim here; and a relatively easy to recruit set of subjects. If men of middle age (for vasectomies) can walk in, be viewed (without knowing what VfF is looking for) and then check off the boxes on a card for "Have you had any of the following: Appendectomy (Y/N); Tonsilectomy (Y/N); Vasectomy (Y/N)", and the results be compared to VfF's results, that's a nice clear comparison.

But, Miss Kitty, she said PEOPLE. And we all know men are dogs.

 

[TheClaw]

The point sort of lost in the argument here is that there is an amply testable claim here; and a relatively easy to recruit set of subjects. If men of middle age (for vasectomies) can walk in, be viewed (without knowing what VfF is looking for) and then check off the boxes on a card for "Have you had any of the following: Appendectomy (Y/N); Tonsilectomy (Y/N); Vasectomy (Y/N)", and the results be compared to VfF's results, that's a nice clear comparison.

This would be great. I would love to hear from VfF: do you feel confident that you can detect appendectomies, tonsilectomies, and/or vasectomies? I know you've mentioned that you detected a vasectomy at least once. Imagine that you just performed the above test, succeeded in getting readings, gave your impressions, and you were wrong (equal to or less than chance). Would you simply decide that you can't successfully detect vasectomies and exclude it from the rest of your claim, or are you truly confident that this is a part of your ability?

By the way -- I've been lurking on this thread for a month now, and amidst all the tomfoolery and monkey business, I am really amazed that VfF has stayed around, continued to post, and remained calm. Bravo!

 

[Anna Karenina]

I don't mean to be the nit-picking science bore but some of the things VisionFromFeeling is saying just don't add up.

My ability works the best on detecting health information, which is why this is what I want to test my ability on, and not chemical identification. The information of the human body is much stronger and easier for me to detect than any non-living materials.

You say that your ability works best on detecting health information and that is what you want to test your ability on instead of chemical identification...I find this statement puzzling. The human body is made up completely of organic (and some non-organic) chemicals. Every disease can be quantified at a molecular, chemical level. You should know this if you are a science student. I'm not saying you are lying but your understanding of molecular science seems a little iffy for someone claiming to be a science student.

The thing taking up my time and that is more important than this is college. I am doing a B.S. Chemistry and B.S. Physics both in a total of five years, plus research.

This doesn't make sense to me. I am a (noob) scientist about to go into post-grad...I did my undergraduate Bachelor of Science in biochemistry (mainly genetics) and biomedical science (mainly microbiology, some physiol) - you don't do two bachelor of sciences at the same time, one in chem and one in physics, no university allows this and it doesn't make any sense. You do a Bachelor of Science and within that you pick two majors or you do a double major. And it takes 3 years, not 5. And there is no research - that happens in post-grad..either honours, or masters, or PhD.

Also, you don't know much about stats so that tells me you must be in your first year or first semester...yet in a chemistry lab you were allowed to use an NMR machine to determine compound structure? I have never, ever heard of a first year student, or a second year student, being allowed to use an NMR machine. Even in third year you might get to use it once, and that would be heavily supervised and you would need training. What kind of NMR was it? It just..doesn't..add up.

One day when I met a friend of mine I was stunned because there was something highly unusual about him. I couldn't even say hi to him but kept looking at his stomach with suspicion. I was seeing his stomach (that is, the stomach organ), which was empty and looked very common in itself, with the gray-brownish color of its tissue along with some red from the hydrogen ions from the stomach acid, but there was something bright, bright white sitting near the pyloric valve, which is the entrance region between the stomach toward the intestines. I kept looking at this thing. It was circular and neither fully round or flat, and had a very strong and clearly-defined external casing. I told him that I see a living organism in his stomach, yet when I checked its vibrational aspect it was not disturbing the stomach in any way, which is suspicious since the stomach detects many types of bacteria and responds with discomfort. I described to him that I see a bright white little bacteria, yet that it was doing no harm or even intending to do harm, which is unusual for bacteria. He then told me that he was taking a supplement of Lactobacillus after a stomach problem, and I immediately realized that that was what it was.

About a year before this I was at the food store walking through the cereal aisle when I suddenly had to come to a halt and stop at a cereal box. I had never seen such a bright, bright white vibrational aspect of something little and roundish, with such a clearly defined outer casing, such an intensely bright vibrational aspect, and sitting inside a cereal box! I picked up the box and read carefully - turns out it contained Lactobacillus. Who would have known.

I know this might sound like nit-picking but it is really bugging me and I think it detracts from the validity of your claims. Every single person has billions of commensual (i.e harmless or beneficial) bacteria living in their gut...so I don't know what you mean by 'since the stomach detects many types of bacteria and responds with discomfort' or 'it was doing no harm or even intending to do harm, which is unusual for bacteria'.