The VFF Test is On!

[Rodney]

But let's look at the statistics. Here are the results of the JREF members who guessed along with Anita:

Akhenaten: 0 hits (sorry, Pharaoh)
jhunter1163: 0 hits (apparently VisionFromSwilling is just beer goggles after all)
Volatile: 0 hits
Agatha: 0.5 hits
McLuvin: 1.5 hits

(Agatha's daughter apparently got two out of three, as did the guy in the audience, but since I don't have written evidence I exclude them, sorry about that)

Here we see exactly what is expected statistically; one in five does as well as Anita. She did nothing that couldn't be explained as a lucky guess.

Your sample size is insufficient to draw any conclusions. However, the average score of 0.4 hits is pretty much what you would expect if the test were conducted properly; i.e., if there were no clues as to what subjects did not have kidneys. However, we really need to look at how the audience as a whole did, not just the above five.

 

[Akhenaten]

Your sample size is insufficient to draw any conclusions. However, the average score of 0.4 hits is pretty much what you would expect if the test were conducted properly; i.e., if there were no clues as to what subjects did not have kidneys. However, we really need to look at how the audience as a whole did, not just the above five.

No, we don't. The audience wasn't the subject of the demonstration.

Vision from Feeling was.

She failed.

 

[IXP]

So the matter is settled, time to move on.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for Rule 11

Keep on topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[wardenclyffe]

Anita, where did anyone say anything about your weight?

It was pretty vicious. People were attacking everyone onscreen, but saved special vitriol for VfF. Not the finest hour for many folk. Does not change the outcome of the test, though.

Ward

P.S. This is based only on reading the www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com chat log. I have not seen the IIG chat log because I haven't been able to download it from that rapishare site that someone linked to a couple of pages ago. Is there any other source for it? If anyone has it, please post it so we can all read it. Thanks.

 

[ynot]

BURN THE WITCH . . . BURN THE WITCH . . . BURN THE WITCH . . .

Do you guys seriously expect a believer to abandon their beliefs using critical thinking and evaluation when they didn’t formulate them that way to begin with?
That a believer will see more success than failure is to be expected. At least she had the guts to attempt to demonstrate her claim in a sceptic-controlled test (more than most believers will do). I suspect that any other believers that may have been considering undergoing similar testing will have well and truly been put off by the baying of the JREF sceptic hounds.

 

[bookitty]

BURN THE WITCH . . . BURN THE WITCH . . . BURN THE WITCH . . .

Do you guys seriously expect a believer to abandon their beliefs using critical thinking and evaluation when they didn’t formulate them that way to begin with?
That a believer will see more success than failure is to be expected. At least she had the guts to attempt to demonstrate her claim in a sceptic-controlled test (more than most believers will do). I suspect that any other believers that may have been considering undergoing similar testing will have well and truly been put off by the baying of the JREF sceptic hounds.

I also wonder how many believers resist giving up their beliefs because they don't want to be attacked for being wrong all along. Anita has been thoroughly dismissed here. Perhaps she feels that changing her mind would open her up to more scorn. A vicious cycle. Clinging to illogical explanations and happenstance is making it impossible for the skeptical community to respect her.

 

[Moochie]

BURN THE WITCH . . . BURN THE WITCH . . . BURN THE WITCH . . .

Do you guys seriously expect a believer to abandon their beliefs using critical thinking and evaluation when they didn’t formulate them that way to begin with?
That a believer will see more success than failure is to be expected. At least she had the guts to attempt to demonstrate her claim in a sceptic-controlled test (more than most believers will do). I suspect that any other believers that may have been considering undergoing similar testing will have well and truly been put off by the baying of the JREF sceptic hounds.

Of course, the mere thought of a skeptic is enough to send shivers down the spine of a psychic, not to mention completely destroying the special "something" that makes them psychic. Poor dears.


M.

 

[GeeMack]

I also wonder how many believers resist giving up their beliefs because they don't want to be attacked for being wrong all along. Anita has been thoroughly dismissed here. Perhaps she feels that changing her mind would open her up to more scorn. A vicious cycle. Clinging to illogical explanations and happenstance is making it impossible for the skeptical community to respect her.

Fear of more scorn for acknowledging her mistaken belief? I suppose, but since the way a woo's mind works is foreign to my way of thinking, I can't really grasp the kind of rationalization that might be involved. But Jesus, it seems to me the only way to salvage any honor at all would be to come clean, correct the lies, apologize to all the people who spent a lot of time and effort to help her and who she eventually crapped on as thanks for all that help, and admit how wrong the whole thing was in the first place.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It was pretty vicious. People were attacking everyone onscreen, but saved special vitriol for VfF. Not the finest hour for many folk. Does not change the outcome of the test, though.

Ward

P.S. This is based only on reading the www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com chat log. I have not seen the IIG chat log because I haven't been able to download it from that rapishare site that someone linked to a couple of pages ago. Is there any other source for it? If anyone has it, please post it so we can all read it. Thanks.

Yeah--these kinds of comments were made. (I was on that chat for a while, and I didn't make any remarks about her personal appearance--other than a comment about her reply in the post-test interview to the question about her not wearing shoes. I don't think it was serious, but she said it helps, and I said something like "So she gets synesthesia from feeling that comes in from her feet that she sees as vision?" )

In defense of those taking potshots, I'd only say that alcohol was certainly involved, and also people probably weren't aware that a log of that chat was going to be made that would be available to Anita. Not that that's a good excuse. . . .

Still, personal remarks directed at someone making an utter fool of herself in public pale in comparison to what Anita posted here yesterday:

According to me, the claim is not falsified. Yet.

See post #935 for the links back to where these all came from:

I am very aware of the test protocol for the IIG Preliminary demonstration, and even though I am the claimant, I am also a science student and I would personally not accept this protocol for a test that could conclude in favor of the claim. The Preliminary is incapable of verifying the claim, however it is still fully capable of falsifying the claim. If I do not have the ability of perceiving internal organs through a person's clothed back, the IIG Preliminary is very likely to show that. There is a chance that I might pass the Preliminary even though I would not have an ability, but that likelihood is still very low. The only consequence would be that such a non-ability would be falsified on a formal test instead, using a stricter protocol.

If I can't pass the Preliminary, there is no hope that I could pass a more elaborately and more strictly designed formal test, and I would be happy to conclude on the claim as falsified if I fail the Preliminary.

It is true that I am quite ready and willing to falsify the claim if I fail the IIG Preliminary demonstration. This Preliminary is based on the very strongest expression of the claim, and this protocol offers the very best chance for that claim to show what if anything it can do, and so if I fail this Preliminary there is no other alternative, no changes to the claim or to the protocol could make it any more likely that I pass. The claim would be falsified. And I'm happy about that. I have faith in the IIG and in the design of the Preliminary. The goal is to reach a reliable conclusion.

Never mind. We'll just see what the Preliminary demonstration concludes.

You are misunderstanding what the IIG Preliminary demonstration is all about! Especially since the design of the Preliminary is less strict than the design of a real formal test would be, the Preliminary gives my claim the very best chance to show what it could do, so you see if I fail the Preliminary there is no other procedure that could be better and so the claim would definitely be falsified and end there. The Preliminary is fully capable of falsifying the claim!

 

[Rodney]

No, we don't. The audience wasn't the subject of the demonstration.

Vision from Feeling was.

She failed.

If she had correctly identified all three of the people in the test who were missing a kidney and correctly identified for two of the three which kidney it was, she also would have failed. The question that should be of interest to a skeptic is whether she identified two of the three who were missing a kidney solely through chance or by some other means. Knowing how the audience did as a whole may help answer that question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you guys seriously expect a believer to abandon their beliefs using critical thinking and evaluation when they didn’t formulate them that way to begin with?

I expect a person who has said repeatedly that if she fails this demonstration she will admit her claim has been falsified to do what she said rather than saying exactly the opposite.

This came up in this thread when I kept insisting that conducting an inconclusive test is not better than not testing at all, and VFF kept insisting that if she failed, it would be conclusive.

She failed, and now I do fully expect her to do what she said she would do. On her site, she pledged to make an announcement that she will abandon her claim of x-ray vision and the related claims related to being able to perceive/detect medical conditions in people.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The question that should be of interest to a skeptic is whether she identified two of the three who were missing a kidney solely through chance or by some other means.

Why? (I've asked you this before--haven't seen an answer.)

The protocol wasn't designed for some other paranormal claim, and Anita didn't make any other paranormal claim.

There is no more evidence to suspect another paranormal ability related to detecting missing kidneys than there is to suspect that Anita can levitate--another paranormal ability that she never even claimed to have.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry--this a bit old in a quick moving thread:

This point was ignored, and does not seem to have been checked up on afterward. I would be delighted if I am wrong, but what I have gleaned from discussion of how the subjects were chosen is that one person knew who the volunteers were and who was definitely missing a kidney so that they could ensure one target per group of six volunteers, but that they did nothing to confirm the existence of all the other 30 kidneys (2 per volunteer - 5 volunteers per group).

This is what happens when a protocol is not sbmitted for peer review among people like yourself and Gzuz, Jackalgirl,etc, who have shown a clear ability to identify holes and areas for concern.

I agree wholeheartedly. It was a terribly sloppy protocol, and there was no advantage to keeping it under wraps. I suspect the main reason for doing that was to avoid answering the criticisms many of us had. (To avoid the informal "peer review" you mention.)

And you're right on the statistical point too. If they never did verify that the 5 subjects in each group that were supposed to have had both kidneys did in fact have both kidneys, it would skew the odds even further in the claimant's favor.

 

[Blackwell]

If she had correctly identified all three of the people in the test who were missing a kidney and correctly identified for two of the three which kidney it was, she also would have failed. The question that should be of interest to a skeptic is whether she identified two of the three who were missing a kidney solely through chance or by some other means. Knowing how the audience did as a whole may help answer that question.

If her performance was within what could be expected from chance, how would knowing the audience's performance help answer the question?

 

[bookitty]

I expect a person who has said repeatedly that if she fails this demonstration she will admit her claim has been falsified to do what she said rather than saying exactly the opposite.

This came up in this thread when I kept insisting that conducting an inconclusive test is not better than not testing at all, and VFF kept insisting that if she failed, it would be conclusive.

She failed, and now I do fully expect her to do what she said she would do. On her site, she pledged to make an announcement that she will abandon her claim of x-ray vision and the related claims related to being able to perceive/detect medical conditions in people.

The other frustrating aspect is that her excuse is so lame. "I was hedging my bets throughout and one of them was right. I am a psychic! Hurray!"

Once her charts are posted it will be much easier to see exactly how much additional information she was tossing at the wall to see what might stick. It was somewhat covered in the interview afterward but got a bit muddled.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also wonder how many believers resist giving up their beliefs because they don't want to be attacked for being wrong all along. Anita has been thoroughly dismissed here. Perhaps she feels that changing her mind would open her up to more scorn. A vicious cycle. Clinging to illogical explanations and happenstance is making it impossible for the skeptical community to respect her.

That may well be what's going through her mind (I don't claim to know), but if it is, it's as wrong as a lot of the other stuff that goes through her mind.

She will receive LOTS of scorn for reneging on her promise to abide by the results of this demonstration and admit that her claim has been falsified and to drop all efforts for continued testing or investigation of the falsified claim.

If she had promptly made the announcement she had promised, I guarantee you, she would have received accolades from the vast majority of people here. I've seen that response in the handful of "class act" MDC claimants who took their failures at face value.

I've even seen sympathy given to those who remain self-deluded (especially, for example, dowsers), but for the various reasons I've cited, VFF is not one of those. She is clearly a fraud and a liar.

 

[wardenclyffe]

So it's better to check every test subject ahead of time than to blind the test subjects---on the off chance that one of them might be congenitally missing a kidney without knowing it? So that way, every test subject knows what VfF is looking for. Talk about making it easy to cold read.

Ward

ETA: This is in response to post #973

 

[Akhenaten]

If she had correctly identified all three of the people in the test who were missing a kidney and correctly identified for two of the three which kidney it was, she also would have failed. The question that should be of interest to a skeptic is whether she identified two of the three who were missing a kidney solely through chance or by some other means. Knowing how the audience did as a whole may help answer that question.

The question that was of interest was, "Can Vision from Vision from Feeling pass the demonstration according to the agreed upon protocol?"

The question is answered. She couldn't.

 

[GeeMack]

If she had correctly identified all three of the people in the test who were missing a kidney and correctly identified for two of the three which kidney it was, she also would have failed. The question that should be of interest to a skeptic is whether she identified two of the three who were missing a kidney solely through chance or by some other means. Knowing how the audience did as a whole may help answer that question.

Again, the game was "guess which kidney is missing", not "guess who is missing a kidney". In each round there were six people holding two kidney containers each. One of the twelve kidney containers in each round was empty. If she didn't pick the empty container in each round she was wrong. The people holding the kidney containers were only relevant in that people make great containers for living human kidneys.

And again again, the guessing game wasn't Anita vs the audience. It was Anita vs the odds. And the odds, the actual numbers, have been explained several times in this thread already.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If her performance was within what could be expected from chance, how would knowing the audience's performance help answer the question?

I think Rodney's trying to argue that the audience's guesses could be used as a control to calculate a better statistical model of the odds against the guesses Anita gave.

I see three immediate problems with that approach:

1) The audience wasn't part of the protocol so the controls observed wrt to the claimant did not affect them. (And they were in the audience and/or other locations where the claimant was not--for the most part, she was much nearer to the subjects than the people in the audience.)

2) If the protocol were properly observed (see CZ's observation about how whether we actually knew there was only 1 missing kidney per 12 kidney slots in each group) , using the audience as a control group would not in fact give you a better idea of the odds against.

3) The question I think Rodney is getting at is another example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It doesn't matter what the odds were against the result the claimant gave. The criterion for success or failure was based on her claim and agreed upon ahead of time. Anything less than 100% was a failure. Period. If she wants to make some OTHER claimed ability, we'd have to come up with a protocol to test that OTHER ability. (See my comment above that Rodney's argument that we should suspect the presence of some OTHER ability than the one she claimed is no more valid than saying we ought suspect her to have the ability to levitate.)