Right my patience is officially at an end.
I tried to be constructive, I tried to deal solely with the study, I tried to generate something worthwhile out of the mess that is this study.
No-one, not even Anita Liekonen could say I didn't.
But I've had enough now.
The last 10-20 pages and all my recent posts have demonstrated that you
get absolutely nowhere by treating Anita respectfully, sticking resolutely to the subject, avoiding any distractions or irrelevancies and even sometimes disagreeing with other skeptics in order to attempt to assist her in attempting to tighten some of the fuzziness around this 'study'.
To some extent it was an experiment on my part.
I wanted to attempt to do what I could to help Anita try and get something useful from this study, and see how far such an approach might work.
I tried to generate a Falsification Scenario (we can disagree about the real validity of my arbitrary figures elsewhere) and I even tried to come up with a way that she could measure the strength of individual ailment detection.
I got pretty much NOTHING by way of response from her. She was not interested in working with me on this, or discussing the details.
All I got was a list of ailments measured in a completely different way to what I suggested (her ludicrous percentage scale, adding another scale
ON TOP of her 1-5 scale).
My attempts to turn this into something that could be measured as Hits and Misses for the Falsification Scenario she claimed to want, were competely ignored.
Either way I would have learned something by trying to work with her. Whether she was interested in working with anyone or not.
I have learned the not entirely unexpected fact that she is
not interested in actually developing a Study, Survey, Test... anything whereby her nonsense is really measured (hardly scoop of the century I know but in this instance she can't turn around and say I didn't try).
She had the opportunity to attempt to convince me she was at least trying to develop a useful protocol, but maybe just had a poor understanding of scientific protocol or experimental design and was open to suggestions.
She is not. She is actively avoiding anything that might remove wiggle room for her ridiculous interpretations of her own ability.
Anita Ikonen said:
Dear FACT Skeptics,
I do hope that we can have the study into my paranormal claim this Sunday February 8 as I am hoping to begin making some real progress in my investigation.
Here is a study procedure written specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751378?...4fgromuvbb62r3
And the health questionnaire specificly for this study http://www.scribd.com/full/11751384?...itvrjnq13y745e
The internet version of the questionnaire displays displays the tables incorrectly. Find both of these documents enclosed as original and printable Word.doc attachments in this e-mail. E-mail me if you are unable to access printable versions of the documents.
After all this time still no correct documents. A last minute rejig, no doubt something that will change again, probably as it was being handed to the volunteers.
This isn't science, this isn't a study, this is a joke.
A day out for Anita.
A party in the park with Anita as the centre of a hub of meaningless activity.
Jim wrote,
Neither my dad or myself can participate the 7th or the 14th. We could do
it on Sunday the 8th or the 15th. As far as making last minute changes-I
can't agree to participate with that. The study that you propose is very
ambiguous and we need what is going to count as a hit and a miss. I
understand that you want to have people rate their pain-but pain is
subjective. So how do you know if what you rate as a 3 is what the
volunteer would rate a 3? Ashles from the JREF has proposed a simple form
for you to fill out that would decide before hand what is a hit and what
is a miss. For me to participate, you need to have your study, in writing,
at least 72 hours before the study is to take place so that myself and the
other FACT members/participants can decide if we still want to
participate.
Jim tries to deal in specifics and details and timescales.
He is of course as doomed to failure as any of us who attempt that.
The study is not a test and is primarily not designed according to a point scale system, but see the enclosed study procedure which suggests one method of obtaining a result. In the procedure I suggest that for each of the answers that can be answered on a scale of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, each discrepancy of one units between the answers of volunteer and claimant results in a deduction of 20% of the possible 1.0 point for that question. So that if one answers 2 and the other answers 4 there is a deduction of 40% and 0.6 points correlation for that particular ailment. Since it would be easy to "collect points" by guessing randomly and getting at least "some" correlation, the average correlation per question is calculated. Two skeptics are asked to look at the volunteers and to fill in health questionnaires alongside me the claimant and we will compare the average correlation between claimant and that acchieved by non-claimants. I do not have an answer as to what specific results would lead to the falsification of the paranormal claim.
Anita ignored
EVERY SINGLE POST I made about this.
EVERY SINGLE ONE.
I suggested a way this could be calculated. She didn't even have the decency to respond, much less to try to work with me to improve anything she felt could be reworked.
Just offhand remarks to Jim about it.
Anita never intended to have a falsification scenario. Which we all suspected all along. I was amazed it was even in there as a goal.
Again it shows how appallingly sloppy her study design is - she apparently couldn't even decide if it is intended to falsify or not?
What do they teach at that University?
It
was part of the study, now, oh hang on I don't really know how to do that? Oh you have a suggestion? I'll just ignore it, maybe it will go away...
Either she is an abysmal student, her University has Mickey Mouse science degrees or she is simply not interested in analysing her claim in any serious way.
You can tick more than one if you like.
This study is designed primarily for educational purposes, and to make it into a test would reduce the educational quality of the study.
I'm simply going to assume that sentence is a joke.
This study could not have any less "educational quality" if it were designed by Laurel and Hardy.
I am just hoping that a non-ability would have some opportunity of being revealed.
No aims as to
how, just, you know, it'll sort of happen. Still it doesn't really matter, it's just a fun day out in the park.
If it bothers you that there is not a specific point at which the claim would be falsified you may then assume that falsification of a non-ability is not among the objectives of this study.
And there we go. The possibility of falsification is simply dropped. She had given it no thought when designing the study, just chucked it in as a vague goal of the "Oh I'll know it when I see it" variety. You know, just how real science works.
I particularly enjoy the implication is that it because
Jim has some strange and unreasonable concerns that there is no agreement of what would constitute falsification.
Never mind that
that is
ENTIRELY ANITA'S FAULT due to bad study design, lack of intelligent or strict goals and completely ignoring any proposals around falsification.
I really would value your participations.
That is simply a lie. It has passed its sell by date. Wolf has been cried too often. It is meaningless to say she values participation when every single action she makes demonstrates she clearly does not.
Anita has NO interest in anyone's input, suggestions, participation... nothing. Anything that might tighten the protocol or yield useful information is simply rejected or ignored.
She is as self centred as a gyroscope.
This study would be tremendously helpful in forming a stronger claim and coming closer to a real test and the real falsification of a non-ability.
No it won't. It will not be useful for anything whatsoever. She may as well eat a sandwich or learn the violin for all the use this study will be.
And it won't even happen unless Anita does it on her own somewhere. She is systematically ignoring, rejecting or alienating anyone who might possibly want to be involved.
And, do remember: it is a study, not a test. So don't take it "too" seriously.
So even Anita views it as a complete waste of time?
I'm sure all the skeptics who spent time trying to come up with protocols, methods of analysis, reading forms, organising their free time to be spent on this study... I'm sure they are all overjoyed that it turns out Anita doesn't treat this seriously.
Fine let's all forget about it.
I do hope that the study can take place.
Simply and demonstrably untrue.
Why?
It's not a test, it has no strict protocol, no clear goals, no agreed method of measurement, no method of falsification, no location, no participants and it shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm sure the FACT Skeptics are all fired up about participating in
that.
Oh so today she
is a Paranormal claimant then?
Oh look, I found something that might be true. Her name.
And just so we are clear on this once and for all - Anita - you have made incorrect claims regarding your ability.
Wayne's shoulder and his throat were simply and indisputably incorrect perceptions. Your excuses around this are actually laughable now.
I'm glad I perservered as much as I did, I feel totally comfortable in now assuming Anita does not beleive she has any ability whatsoever.
This entire claim from hereonin is, to me, entirely for the entertainment that will be generated by watching her attempt to squirm out of testing.
And alienating yet further skeptic groups.
