• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The VFF Test is On!

Akhenaten said:
You skeptics are all the same! You're just impatient, especially dear GeeMack and the wonderful SezMe. You just wait and see! All of your questions will be answered eventually.
Click to expand...


VisionFromFeeling said:
The test protocol will not be published. This is to protect the integrity of the test and to better ensure a double blind procedure for all of those involved. I am allowed to publish the protocol, but the IIG will not, and so neither will I. You only have less than a month to wait until you get to see the test itself and once the test has been concluded I am sure the protocol will be published then. Just think of it as a surprise that way.
Click to expand...


At least when I channel you it's briefer.
 
SezMe said:
Nonsense. Publishing the protocol will ensure the integrity of the test. I have sent an e-mail to the IIG stating that keeping the protocol private is a "serious problem". We'll see. ETA: "Nonsense" being in response to #38, not #39....which is merely tongue-in-cheek nonsense. :)
Click to expand...
Since I am allowed to post content from my e-mail correspondence with the IIG, here is part of what was said,

IIG said:
We realize the more information leaked to the general public, the less we will be able to make the test "double blind." [...] We do not intend to be the source of more information getting out to the public [...]
Click to expand...
And what do you make of that "nonsense"?
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
The test protocol will not be published. This is to protect the integrity of the test and to better ensure a double blind procedure for all of those involved. I am allowed to publish the protocol, but the IIG will not, and so neither will I. You only have less than a month to wait until you get to see the test itself and once the test has been concluded I am sure the protocol will be published then. Just think of it as a surprise that way.
Click to expand...

I apologise for Post # 23, and ask now... let the games begin. I apologise specifically for trying to defend VfF.

Norm
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
Since I am allowed to post content from my e-mail correspondence with the IIG, here is part of what was said,

the IIG said:
We realize the more information leaked to the general public, the less we will be able to make the test "double blind." [...] We do not intend to be the source of more information getting out to the public [...]
Click to expand...


And what do you make of that "nonsense"?
Click to expand...


This:

1. We aren't the general public,

2. Why do the IIG use quotes around "double blind"?

3. What information is in the protocol that hasn't been discussed here ad infinatum?

4. What's after the elipses?
 
Last edited:
According to the IIG, JREF has had a copy of the protocol for almost a week but has not commented on it at all. I'm going to PM Jeff/Phil/Randi to see if they have any comment.

ETA: Here is what I sent to them:

I understand that JREF has a copy of the proposed protocol for the IIG test of Anita Ikonen. Do you have any comment on that protocol. If so, would you be willing to share your thoughts at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157453

Thanks a lot in advance.

<my name>
Click to expand...
ETAA: By way of full disclosure, the IIG has sent me a copy of protocol but I will not make it public. That the IIG or Anita don't want it public baffles me but I am NOT going to do ANYTHING to give either party an out prior to the test. Period. If it becomes public, it will NOT be by my hand.
 
Last edited:
daSkeptic said:
the majority of these forums are accessible to any random person who happens by the site.
Click to expand...
Or who is asked to volunteer to be a subject in a test of paranormal claimant Anita Ikonen and immediately googles the name. I know I would. [I just did: a thread on this forum is the sixth link listed].

Without knowing what the protocol is it's impossible to say whether volunteers knowing it in advance might affect their behaviour during the test, but I tend to think you can't be too careful where blinding is concerned.
 
Anita, sincere congratulations for getting to this point! Hope everything goes well and the test turns out to be all you've hoped for so long.:)
 
Pixel42 said:
Or who is asked to volunteer to be a subject in a test of paranormal claimant Anita Ikonen and immediately googles the name. I know I would. [I just did: a thread on this forum is the sixth link listed].

Without knowing what the protocol is it's impossible to say whether volunteers knowing it in advance might affect their behaviour during the test, but I tend to think you can't be too careful where blinding is concerned.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree that the protocol should remain unpublished, for the same reason. Anita will use every excuse she can think of to explain away her failure as it is.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
The test protocol will not be published. This is to protect the integrity of the test and to better ensure a double blind procedure for all of those involved. I am allowed to publish the protocol, but the IIG will not, and so neither will I. You only have less than a month to wait until you get to see the test itself and once the test has been concluded I am sure the protocol will be published then. Just think of it as a surprise that way.
Click to expand...
A secret protocol? That's a new one on me.

Pixel42 said:
Without knowing what the protocol is it's impossible to say whether volunteers knowing it in advance might affect their behaviour during the test, but I tend to think you can't be too careful where blinding is concerned.
Click to expand...
It's a protocol with the massive hole that knowing the protocol ruins the protocol? All righty then.

My first remark after the test will be: How do you know some of the subjects didn't know the protocol beforehand?

~~ Paul
 
I take on board all the points raised about the knowledge of the "general public", however, it does raise the question of where the volunteers ARE coming from, and how they will be induced to volunteer for an an unseen protocol.

That would be brave wouldn't it?
 
If these people have been recruited by advertising for those missing organs, then all the cold-reading issues that came up in the previous thread are still in play.

Without seeing the protocol, we simply cannot know if adequate steps have been taken to reduce the possibility of cold reading...
 
Um, IIG have $50,000 riding on this.

I know if I was taking a bet with those stakes, I'd make sure that all the loopholes were closed.

If not, they're 50k down and JREF has a "free" lesson on what not to do on their protocol.

Oh, and good luck "Honey".
(I got a long memory, I guess)
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
It's a protocol with the massive hole that knowing the protocol ruins the protocol? All righty then.

My first remark after the test will be: How do you know some of the subjects didn't know the protocol beforehand?
Click to expand...
:)

I agree that it's an entirely unnecessary - absurd, even - precaution to take. Nevertheless, having seen some of the excuses that have been offered after the event in the past, I can sort of understand the degree of paranoia that is prompting it.
 
EHocking said:
Um, IIG have $50,000 riding on this.

I know if I was taking a bet with those stakes, I'd make sure that all the loopholes were closed.

If not, they're 50k down and JREF has a "free" lesson on what not to do on their protocol.

Oh, and good luck "Honey".
(I got a long memory, I guess)
Click to expand...


As I understood the press release, this is just a preliminary test, so the $50K isn't on the line just yet.
 
SezMe, can you at least comment on the protocol as far as answering the question whether you think the protocol would be up to JREF MDC standards? That is, in your opinion, would the protocol as it is be acceptable for the JREF MDC?

The reason I ask that is that the IIG press release suggests that it is:
If she is successful Anita will move on to the formal test for the IIG’s “$50,000 Challenge,” and potentially go for a one million dollar prize offered by the godfather of skepticism — James Randi.
Click to expand...

I realize you don't speak for JREF, and that I'm just asking for your opinion.
 
I think IIG is assuming that if she wins their $50K, she'd have plenty of media presence and academic attention, and that she'd easily qualify for the MDC.

Ward
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom