VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Jeff Wagg]

To be clear Rational Alchemy has nothing to do with the JREF, and all my comments on the show were mine, and mine alone.

I think it's important to talk to people like VFF, and that we do a disservice to the world when we write people off as untouchable, as many people in this thread seem to wish.

To be clear, I in no way think she has any powers. Rational Alchemy is a loose format show in which we explore many elements of skepticism. My job there is not to be "hard hitting" or "fight the woo" or any of that; it's to explore what skepticism means, and what it is. It may not be the show for you.

If she says she can do things, she has to provide evidence in order for me to believe it. She has not done so, and she agrees with that. But she still has the belief. I think that's fascinating, and worth exploring.

Whatever your personal feelings for VFF might be, she's articulate and able to explain the mentality behind her beliefs to a greater degree than many, and I think there is value in skeptics discussing her beliefs with her.

There were portions of the recording edited out at VFF's request. I find that regrettable, but that's our policy. We would have not aired the show if there was too much editing, or if the editing led to manipulation of information.

As for the IIG test, VFF and I discussed it in depth off the air. She clearly failed the challenge, and she understands that, but she's certain that she "felt something" in trial 2, and that makes her want to try again. I see no reason not to let her. I told her that if she thought she had this ability, that she should practice more and gain a better understanding of it so she won't fail again.

So maybe you learned something from the show, and maybe you didn't. Maybe it made you think a bit more or understand how some claimants believe. I think it was a good show to do, and I do others like it.

Oh, one other point. I did not offer the a JREF Challenge to her. I'm not sure if she applied, but I did inform her that if she wants to talk to me, it will not be related to a challenge.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've been wondering the same thing. This situation makes me feel that Ms. Ikonen has hijacked skepticism and, with the help of Mr. Wagg, twisted it into an unrecognizable shadow of it's former self. Put simply, I feel betrayed and I don't think I'm alone in this feeling.

I couldn't agree more, AC, and you most certainly aren't alone.

'Betrayed' is exactly the feeling I get from the situation. It's a huge let-down to discover that nothing we've ever done to prevent the creation of another Sylvia Browne has the support of the foundation we thought was our ally.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Where did he say all this? The first I've seen about this podcast was this thread, but I've not been following VfF closely.

He says it on the podcast which you can find here: http://rational-alchemy.com/

It's not at the top of the page where it says "latest" podcast, but it's at the bottom of the entry for the 3/27 podcast.

Ward

 

[GeeMack]

Jeff should get a shot at the MDC. He predicted in advance that he would get a lot of flack over the interview, and he was 100% correct. He also stated that he didn't believe she had any paranormal abilities, but he was willing to have a conversation with her, and keep an open mind, just in case he is wrong. I think he clearly showed the difference between a skeptic and a cynic. Many of us here have been more cynical than skeptical, myself included. That being said, I don't believe she has the slightest paranormal ability. I do however believe she has a fantastic imagination.

Jeff wasn't competent to do the interview. Being willing to engage a has-been woo in conversation doesn't make him a good skeptic. He wasn't familiar with the claim. He certainly wasn't familiar with the IIG protocol. He barely expressed any legitimate skepticism. Jeff had several opportunities to explain the burden of proof issue during the segment where Anita schmoozed him with the ghost hunting malarkey, but he didn't. Instead he asked Anita to define falsifying vs. verifying, and didn't mention once that she was wrong. But remember, this was something like a radio show, show biz, an entertainment piece. Jeff was doing a fine job of indulging Anita's desire for attention. And Nigel Aves? Holy mackerel. He was playing right into her need to feel special by fawning over her like some high school kid with a crush.

Keep in mind that the skeptics who have been involved in this fiasco have not been cynical. They have been good skeptics. Almost to a man (and woman of course), they have taken the position that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. The fact that they don't give equal credence to has-xray-vision and doesn't-have-xray-vision does not make them cynical. For the most part it's Anita who insists other people disprove her claims. The fact that we toss it back into her court isn't cynicism. It's quintessential skepticism. But when there are interviews like the Rational Alchemy one under discussion, and when people like Jeff Wagg have the opportunity to set the record straight but instead bail on their responsibility to do so, it only serves to make legitimate skepticism more difficult for the real skeptics.

Unfortunately there has been a reluctance on the part of the JREF staff, forum admins, and forum moderators to allow for free discussion of the most likely, best evidenced explanations for everything Anita has done and said. The policy is that the process of skepticism must end when someone gets their panties in a bunch. Even in the interview Jeff was critical of those who consider the possibility that Anita is simply mentally ill. Unless one is honest about considering all the possibilities and vigilant in working to support or eliminate them, one is not being a good skeptic. In the case of the VisionFromFeeling claims, tests, discussions, and the Rational Alchemy podcast, no, Jeff hasn't been a particularly good skeptic.

[...] Rational Alchemy is a loose format show in which we explore many elements of skepticism. My job there is not to be "hard hitting" or "fight the woo" or any of that; it's to explore what skepticism means, and what it is. [...]

But, as I explained above, you dropped the ball on several opportunities to do just that.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I couldn't agree more, AC, and you most certainly aren't alone.

'Betrayed' is exactly the feeling I get from the situation. It's a huge let-down to discover that nothing we've ever done to prevent the creation of another Sylvia Browne has the support of the foundation we thought was our ally.

The JREF had nothing to do with the interview, and I am not representing the JREF when I do Rational Alchemy.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

Whatever your personal feelings for VFF might be, she's articulate and able to explain the mentality behind her beliefs to a greater degree than many, and I think there is value in skeptics discussing her beliefs with her.

<snip>

My personal feelings have nothing to do with things like this, from VfF's website:

​

"able to explain the mentality behind her beliefs "


You've got to be kidding.

 

[Moochie]

Two words: Woo economy.


M.

 

[Akhenaten]

The JREF had nothing to do with the interview, and I am not representing the JREF when I do Rational Alchemy.

Whether you do so officially or not, Jeff, I'm afraid that you can't escape that you are who you are, in terms of the JREF, and the perception of the hoi polloi is that you represent the JREF at all times when you speak on matters such as this.

 

[godless dave]

Whether you do so officially or not, Jeff, I'm afraid that you can't escape that you are who you are, in terms of the JREF, and the perception of the hoi polloi is that you represent the JREF at all times when you speak on matters such as this.

I don't think that's fair. I share some of your other criticisms, especially about giving this potential con-artist a platform, but not this one. People should be able to engage in activities outside of the organizations they work for.

 

[RSLancastr]

I know very little about VFF, and have not listened to the podcast, but I know Jeff Wagg, and am confident that he went into this with his eyes wide open. The man has been dealing with MDC claimants for years, folks. Cut him some slack! I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this.

 

[remirol]

Whether you do so officially or not, Jeff, I'm afraid that you can't escape that you are who you are, in terms of the JREF, and the perception of the hoi polloi is that you represent the JREF at all times when you speak on matters such as this.

It might be time for the hoi polloi to step back a bit, then, and start considering that not every encounter with a "woo" is the appropriate time to leap into the fray, skeptical guns-a-blazin', ready to pedantically shout them down on everything they say that isn't abject acknowledgement of their own mistaken-ness.

Especially in an interview in which one is a guest.

I find those who are claiming Jeff wasn't a "good skeptic" for $REASON or $OTHER to be utterly laughable caricatures of the rationality they pretend to espouse. What is, then, a "good skeptic" -- and who made any given person the authority on that definition? Yet another example why I refuse to self-identify as "skeptic", preferring instead "critical thinker" or, ideally, preferring no label at all; I don't need to be a True Scotsman, see.

 

[zooterkin]

He says it on the podcast which you can find here: http://rational-alchemy.com/

Ah, ok, you're paraphrasing what he says at the end of the podcast, which I hadn't got to at the time of posting.

 

[GeeMack]

Whatever your personal feelings for VFF might be, she's articulate and able to explain the mentality behind her beliefs to a greater degree than many, and I think there is value in skeptics discussing her beliefs with her.

Discussing her beliefs with her, in the manner that you did on the podcast, was simply an exercise in indulging her fantasies. I think you'll find you're alone in believing there is value in that.

And as far as explaining the mentality behind her beliefs? Yeah, right. Sorry, Jeff, but you don't appear to have the slightest idea about the mentality behind her beliefs. She manipulated you, played you like a badly tuned violin, and you fell for it.

There are several threads right here in this forum where you can learn a little bit about Anita. It's very obvious you haven't read any of them. There's a web site called Stop Vision from Feeling where you can learn even more about her claims and fantasies of having magical powers. Anita has her own web site you can look at. And the IIG has some good material on Anita, her claims, and the IIG test that you clearly know almost nothing about.

If you do think there is value in skeptics discussing her beliefs with her, you might want to leave those discussions to actual skeptics. And if you fancy yourself among the skeptics, you might consider at least making an effort to learn a little bit about the subject of the discussion.

 

[Audible Click]

Whether you do so officially or not, Jeff, I'm afraid that you can't escape that you are who you are, in terms of the JREF, and the perception of the hoi polloi is that you represent the JREF at all times when you speak on matters such as this.

I agree with Akhenaten. You, Mr. Wagg, can speak to all the delusional woos you want to, but before doing so you should have made it quite clear that you are not speaking on behalf of the JREF. Do you know how many forum members spent hundreds of hours trying to help VfF? For two years, posters gave of their time preparing various protocols even going so far as to mail her common, over the counter drugs so she could use her super duper vision to scan them. Of course she blew that test off as she did with protocols, affidavits, and raw data from her "test" with the Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers group.

 

[GeeMack]

I know very little about VFF, and have not listened to the podcast, but I know Jeff Wagg, and am confident that he went into this with his eyes wide open. The man has been dealing with MDC claimants for years, folks. Cut him some slack! I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this.

If by "eyes wide open" you mean he went into a discussion about the IIG test without really knowing anything about it, then yes, I suppose you're right.

 

[remirol]

It might be time for the hoi polloi to step back a bit, then, and start considering that not every encounter with a "woo" is the appropriate time to leap into the fray, skeptical guns-a-blazin', ready to pedantically shout them down on everything they say that isn't abject acknowledgement of their own mistaken-ness.

Especially in an interview in which one is a guest.

I find those who are claiming Jeff wasn't a "good skeptic" for $REASON or $OTHER to be utterly laughable caricatures of the rationality they pretend to espouse. What is, then, a "good skeptic" -- and who made any given person the authority on that definition? Yet another example why I refuse to self-identify as "skeptic", preferring instead "critical thinker" or, ideally, preferring no label at all; I don't need to be a True Scotsman, see.

And if you fancy yourself among the skeptics,

Again, who are you to declare who is and isn't a skeptic? Please provide evidence in the form of published citations or retract your entire post.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The JREF had nothing to do with the interview, and I am not representing the JREF when I do Rational Alchemy.

So, when you post here defending your Rational Alchemy interview with "Communications and Outreach Coordinator - JREF Staff" under your avatar, are you representing the JREF?

From an official standpoint, I believe you if you say the JREF doesn't pay you directly to do the RA show. However, I find it disingenuous at best for you to say that you don't somehow "represent" the JREF when you do it. It's not like you're on Billy Bob's BBQ Bonanza Podcast talking about your favorite rub. You're the JREF Communications and Outreach Coordinator making a public appearance about skepticism. The JREF's stated mission is "to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today." That sounds like what you were doing.

When you joined the cast of RA, this is how you were announced:

http://rational-alchemy.com/home-page/854-rational-alchemy-tonight
We are happy to finally announce that the new Rational Alchemy cast members are Jeff Wagg and Alison Smith! Jeff is the Communication and Outreach Manager for the JREF and Alison is the administrator for the million dollar prize. They joined us for the first time this week for introductions and a general discussion of all things skeptical.

The natural assumption is that if two members of the JREF staff join a podcast and one of them is the Communications and Outreach Coordinator, they are probably representing the JREF in some fashion, especially when making such appearances is directly in-line with the JREF's mission. Since there are no disclaimers that you are doing this on your own time and expressing your own opinions, I would say that whether you like it or not, people are assuming you are representing the JREF.

Furthermore, in this particular case you interviewed someone who is a well-known member on the JREF Forums. She has publicly stated that she has inquired about the MDC. She took the IIG Challenge, and had she passed, she would have been qualified to take the MDC because of the relationship between the JREF and the IIG. A reasonable person would conclude that you were in fact representing the JREF.

While I have your attention, why didn't you post a link to www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com along with the links to her site and the IIG test? There's a wealth of information there simply not available on either of those sites. And I certainly would have appreciated the opportunity to have participated in such a discussion considering that I don't think anyone is more familiar with her and her claims than me.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't think that's fair. I share some of your other criticisms, especially about giving this potential con-artist a platform, but not this one. People should be able to engage in activities outside of the organizations they work for.

Fair enough.

No argument from me there, and I accept your criticism, however, Mr Wagg ought to be more aware of how Vision From Feeling will (and already has) spin this.

For example, this is the first line of text on the Home Page of her website:

I will be making a guest appearance on the Radio Show at the Rational Alchemy, starring Skeptics Jeff Wagg, Brian Walsh, and Nigel Aves. We discuss my IIG test for an entire hour!​

No matter what is said in this Forum, that is going to create an impression for a great many people that will not serve the JREF's mission one iota.

 

[Akhenaten]

I know very little about VFF, and have not listened to the podcast, but I know Jeff Wagg, and am confident that he went into this with his eyes wide open. The man has been dealing with MDC claimants for years, folks. Cut him some slack! I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this.

my bolding


I do my critical thinking slightly differently.

 

[remirol]

Fair enough.

No argument from me there, and I accept your criticism, however, Mr Wagg ought to be more aware of how Vision From Feeling will (and already has) spin this.

But... who cares? I mean, people who are her fans aren't going to quit no matter what Jeff does during an interview.

For example, this is the first line of text on the Home Page of her website:

I will be making a guest appearance on the Radio Show at the Rational Alchemy, starring Skeptics Jeff Wagg, Brian Walsh, and Nigel Aves. We discuss my IIG test for an entire hour!​

No matter what is said in this Forum, that is going to create an impression for a great many people that will not serve the JREF's mission one iota.

How many people, really? One, two thousand, tops? And how many of those are going to misread what is being said above to mean "Jeff supports me and believes everything!"?

I mean, seriously. It says she'll be making a guest appearance, and that Jeff, Brian, and Nigel will also be there, and they will be talking about her IIG test. I think it will take an enormous amount of mental effort to intentionally misconstrue that to appear as anything other than it reads ... which of course her fans will, but they'd believe anything.