VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[GeeMack]

I don't believe I misunderstood the IIG protocol. Anita failed utterly and completely to do what she claimed she could do with the IIG. However, she did beat chance at determining who was missing a kidney.

And again, she just might have picked the only three people in that entire auditorium who were wearing green underwear. Jeff, listen up. Big firkin deal. What an amazing (not really, but since you apparently don't understand I'll humor you) coincidence that would be. She might have. We don't know. But it's as totally and completely irrelevant as if she picked the three people with a hangnail or who were left handed or whose grandmother didn't make them a sock monkey when they were youngsters. Big deal. Irrelevant.

And, I actually generated my answers to the test far sooner on each round than Anita did. I transmitted those answers to her. I repeat, I transmitted the answers to Anita in the IIG test. Now that is amazing. And of course, merits further testing. I'm sure you'd agree if only...

 

[volatile]

Hey, I got one right too, buddy.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

It's difficult, I agree. But I believe that, at least in this type of interview, these positions have to be challenged to a certain degree otherwise what is the point of having an interview that is connected by whatever means to the concept of skepticism or critical thinking.

There are any number of places where uncritical interviews can be conducted with paranormal claimants.

I completely agree. I listen to skeptical podcasts for the skepticism and critical thinking. If I want to hear a warm and fuzzy interview with a woo claimant, I'll tune into Oprah or Montel.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I hate to tell you this Jeff, but what she did was not beating chance. We had a person in the chat that picked almost the same people as VfF. They missed on #1, Hit on #2 and picked the same person and same wrong side as VfF on number 3 IIRC.

Should that person be tested as well?

VfF only got one out of 3 correct, well within chance.

How do you figure that she beat chance odds?
I don't think you really understand the claim, the protocol and the results.

I'm sorry, but that IS beating chance. And your friend did too. Also, getting one out of three is ALSO beating chance. Chance says she should have gotten one in six, and she got one in three.

I know you don't think I understand, but the fact that you brought up the protocol shows that you're not understanding what I'm claiming. The protocol was completely different, and she failed it.

As for your friend being tested, that depends on if they think they have a paranormal or supernatural ability. I have no idea.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

And again, she just might have picked the only three people in that entire auditorium who were wearing green underwear. Jeff, listen up. Big firkin deal. What an amazing (not really, but since you apparently don't understand I'll humor you) coincidence that would be. She might have. We don't know. But it's as totally and completely irrelevant as if she picked the three people with a hangnail or who were left handed or whose grandmother didn't make them a sock monkey when they were youngsters. Big deal. Irrelevant.

And, I actually generated my answers to the test far sooner on each round than Anita did. I transmitted those answers to her. I repeat, I transmitted the answers to Anita in the IIG test. Now that is amazing. And of course, merits further testing. I'm sure you'd agree if only...

Yes, if she had picked the underwear thing, that would have been impressive. and if your claim at the bottom were correct, I'd like to see that tested.

This is not irrelevant to what I'm saying. It is irrelevant to the protocol that the IIG set up. I have stated that many times.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm sorry, but that IS beating chance. And your friend did too. Also, getting one out of three is ALSO beating chance. Chance says she should have gotten one in six, and she got one in three.

I know you don't think I understand, but the fact that you brought up the protocol shows that you're not understanding what I'm claiming. The protocol was completely different, and she failed it.

As for your friend being tested, that depends on if they think they have a paranormal or supernatural ability. I have no idea.

What difference would it make if that person, me, thinks they have a supernatural ability? What do you know about paranormal abilities anyway? Wouldn't you say it's exactly as possible, as far as our understanding goes, that people have magical powers and don't know it as it is that they have magical powers and do know it? Wouldn't you say that it's just as possible, given our knowledge of the issue, that there may be people who have supernatural powers and do know it, yet just never claim they have it?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

What difference would it make if that person, me, thinks they have a supernatural ability? What do you know about paranormal abilities anyway? Wouldn't you say it's exactly as possible, as far as our understanding goes, that people have magical powers and don't know it as it is that they have magical powers and do know it? Wouldn't you say that it's just as possible, given our knowledge of the issue, that there may be people who have supernatural powers and do know it, yet just never claim they have it?

The only difference is if you're making a claim or not. If you claim to have an ability, challenges like the IIG and JREF challenges are there to help you prove it. If you're not making a claim, there's nothing to test.

You said something interesting: "Our knowledge on the issue." Just what is that? Is that we know that people can't really see inside bodies without the use of equipment (or a gaping wound)? While it's true that everything we've seen is consistent with that idea, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that we're wrong. VFF and many others are claiming that we're wrong, and the only way they'll be able to prove it is to take tests. And though, so far, they've failed every test they've taken, the idea persists.

Why does the idea persist? I find that question very interesting, and worth exploring. YMMV.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, if she had picked the underwear thing, that would have been impressive. and if your claim at the bottom were correct, I'd like to see that tested.

This is not irrelevant to what I'm saying. It is irrelevant to the protocol that the IIG set up. I have stated that many times.

So if she picked the people with the green underwear and claimed, after the information was made available to her, that she magically knew who was wearing green underwear, just like she did with her claim about guessing a correct person in the kidney guessing game, you would think that claim merits further testing? And you don't see a problem with suggesting that someone should have further testing to determine if they have magical powers based on the fact that they knew something that someone had already told them?

And the mistake you're making is even somewhat more complicated than that. This has been pointed out to you a number of times already. She claimed to be able to see a missing kidney, not a person with a missing kidney, so guessing a person who was in fact missing a kidney, but not identifying the correct kidney, was two wrong guesses. It was further from correct than simply admitting with any particular person that she didn't know.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] Why does the idea persist? I find that question very interesting, and worth exploring. YMMV.

I find it fascinating as well. Unfortunately when some of the best evidenced explanations are considered, out loud, someone is likely to get suspended. So exploring it thoroughly is off limits on this forum.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

So if she picked the people with the green underwear and claimed, after the information was made available to her, that she magically knew who was wearing green underwear, just like she did with her claim about guessing a correct person in the kidney guessing game, you would think that claim merits further testing? And you don't see a problem with suggesting that someone should have further testing to determine if they have magical powers based on the fact that they knew something that someone had already told them?

And the mistake you're making is even somewhat more complicated than that. This has been pointed out to you a number of times already. She claimed to be able to see a missing kidney, not a person with a missing kidney, so guessing a person who was in fact missing a kidney, but not identifying the correct kidney, was two wrong guesses. It was further from correct than simply admitting with any particular person that she didn't know.

Who told her which people were missing kidneys? And if she was told, why were there so many people up there?

 

[wardenclyffe]

Finding someone to test her is her problem.

And it's a problem that I doubt she will solve---unless she comes up with a simple test, like chemical identification test or a food vs. houseplant test. At one point in the initial podcast, Jeff Wagg says that some of Anita's claims give him ideas for other tests that could be done with her.

I can only imagine that IIG went down the road of easier test suggestions first. I can't imagine that after a year or so of negotiation that the kidney test was their first and easiest idea. They probably felt that by agreeing to VfF's complicated kidney test, they were forcing her to put up or shut up. They probably figured that she would vanish after they said yes. I guess (if this scenario is accurate) that when VfF did not vanish, then IIG had to put up or shut up. Both sides were stuck. The test happened and VfF failed.

Maybe she can go down the same road with JREF. I don't know of any other group that would be in a position to set up another complicated test. I'm surprised IIG did it, so maybe I will be surprised by some other group I've never heard of.

Most of her posting here since her failure have been of the "poor me" variety because no one seems interested in testing her again. I expect more of the same when she returns.

Ward

 

[kittynh]

OK and the person that is making the joke that Anita needs to meet Michael Shermer, is really pushing it. THough they may very well meet if Anita comes to TAM. I hope she does come and I hope she does accept that she cant see through people. Or if she does, it is with such inaccuracy (like she beat the "odds" is not what we want to see in a medical test) that maybe it's safer and better that she NOT do it. I mean, belief that you can do something that you can't, or that you can do something pretty good sometimes though not with any kind of the accuracy of say a CAT scan (but hey you are a lot cheaper than a CAT scan), can be dangerous. If it's just a parlour trick now, hey that's cool. If she's just doing it to do it, fine.

If she starts charging for it, and people follow her advice, and doctors waste a lot of time and money.. that's not fine. But I don't think she's at that point.

 

[wardenclyffe]

OK and the person that is making the joke that Anita needs to meet Michael Shermer, is really pushing it.

Did I miss something?

Ward

 

[Pup]

I don't believe I misunderstood the IIG protocol. Anita failed utterly and completely to do what she claimed she could do with the IIG. However, she did beat chance at determining who was missing a kidney. There could be any number of reasons for that: poor blinding, obvious clues, collusion, or even actual ability. Dumb luck works too.

I don't really care which of those it was, I'm just saying it's interesting.

Yes, if she had picked the underwear thing, that would have been impressive. and if your claim at the bottom were correct, I'd like to see that tested.

Isn't that pretty close to the sharpshooter's fallacy, though? In other words, there might be many things that she did better than chance, but unless those things are predicted ahead of time, they have no more significance than shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it afterwards.

Even if I flipped a coin ten times and got five heads and five tails, I would have beaten chance, since there's a higher probability I would have gotten anything but that. But for most people, it would only become interesting if that's what I claimed to do ahead of time.

Since Anita has made no claim that she can sense missing kidneys without seeing the individual kidneys paranormally, I'm still curious about an answer to the question I posted a few pages back:

If you think there's any possible significance to Anita's choosing the right person but the wrong kidney, the only thing I can conclude is that you believe she has a different paranormal ability than the one she claims. In other words, that she can tell by some other paranormal means that a person is missing a kidney, without "seeing" which one.

I'm curious what paranormal ability you think Anita might potentially have, and why you think she might be unaware of it while at the same time she believes she has a different paranormal ability (seeing inside people).

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

If she starts charging for it, and people follow her advice, and doctors waste a lot of time and money.. that's not fine. But I don't think she's at that point.

Are you suggesting that we wait until after she passes that point before we do anything?

What happened to the ounce of prevention > a pound of cure thingy?

 

[GeeMack]

Who told her which people were missing kidneys? And if she was told, why were there so many people up there?

The sequence of events went something like this...

(1) The results of the test were announced. (2) Within those results an irrelevant detail was revealed, that being one of the incorrect guesses included a person who was missing a kidney. (3) The claimant declared that she had made a correct guess of a person missing a kidney.​

Which could have been the same thing as...

(1) The results of the test were announced. (2) Within those results an irrelevant detail was revealed, that being one of the incorrect guesses included a person who was wearing green underwear. (3) The claimant declared that she had made a correct guess of a person wearing green underwear.​

One big difference with the second scenario, the lie would have been more obvious to those who weren't especially attentive. It also seems less likely that any podcast interviewers, even as uninformed as you and Nigel were, would have made the mistake of thinking there was anything interesting or worthy of further testing with such a silly irrelevant post-diction.

 

[GeeMack]

Isn't that pretty close to the sharpshooter's fallacy, though? In other words, there might be many things that she did better than chance, but unless those things are predicted ahead of time, they have no more significance than shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it afterwards.

Even if I flipped a coin ten times and got five heads and five tails, I would have beaten chance, since there's a higher probability I would have gotten anything but that. But for most people, it would only become interesting if that's what I claimed to do ahead of time.

Correct. Unfortunately Jeff and Nigel seem to be having a very difficult time admitting their misunderstanding.

And don't forget, I just might have made Anita pick the people she picked. I had the same answers, but I had them before she did. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Even if I flipped a coin ten times and got five heads and five tails, I would have beaten chance, since there's a higher probability I would have gotten anything but that. But for most people, it would only become interesting if that's what I claimed to do ahead of time.

There's that, but the level of interest also depends heavily on the specific odds involved. Beating chance doesn't say much, for instance, if the odds are 1-in-2.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Isn't that pretty close to the sharpshooter's fallacy, though? In other words, there might be many things that she did better than chance, but unless those things are predicted ahead of time, they have no more significance than shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it afterwards.

Even if I flipped a coin ten times and got five heads and five tails, I would have beaten chance, since there's a higher probability I would have gotten anything but that. But for most people, it would only become interesting if that's what I claimed to do ahead of time.

Since Anita has made no claim that she can sense missing kidneys without seeing the individual kidneys paranormally, I'm still curious about an answer to the question I posted a few pages back:

If you think there's any possible significance to Anita's choosing the right person but the wrong kidney, the only thing I can conclude is that you believe she has a different paranormal ability than the one she claims. In other words, that she can tell by some other paranormal means that a person is missing a kidney, without "seeing" which one.

I'm curious what paranormal ability you think Anita might potentially have, and why you think she might be unaware of it while at the same time she believes she has a different paranormal ability (seeing inside people).

Good point, but finding a person with a missing kidney is pretty close to finding a missing kidney itself. If they all were missing a toe or something, I'd be less impressed. She describes this as seeing colors or something, and she admits that she's just learning about her "abilities," so the idea that she could have trouble figuring out the side is at remotely plausible, and in these cases, were talking about the most remote plausibility there is.

I don't think she has ANY ability at all, but I can't think of a reason not to test her.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Correct. Unfortunately Jeff and Nigel seem to be having a very difficult time admitting their misunderstanding.

And don't forget, I just might have made Anita pick the people she picked. I had the same answers, but I had them before she did. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

I have no problem admitting when I have a misunderstanding, you just haven't pointed one out to me yet.