VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Jeff Wagg]

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.

This is very true. VFF beat chance, but not to an amazing degree. We're talking about something that's more likely than even getting two pairs in a hand of poker.

 

[tesscaline]

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 -- Where are you coming up with the numbers for "chance" that you cite?

 

[Hokulele]

Good point, but finding a person with a missing kidney is pretty close to finding a missing kidney itself.

If this were true, the ultra-sound lady should be a million dollars richer.

 

[tesscaline]

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.

I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who said (on the podcast under discussion no less) that the reason these tests are so specific is to avoid allowing the claimant ambiguity so that they cannot later claim that the test was a success because "they were close"? And now you're doing just that exact thing that all the woos are so famous for? "Oh, well, sure she failed, but she was close!"

Can you please explain how "Oh, well, sure she failed, but she was close!" is critical thinking or skepticism? Because it sure seems a heck of a lot like blind faith to me.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Did you miss the point that she apparently had two guesses per round, rather than one, thereby doubling her chances?

 

[Pup]

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.

Last I recall, her claim has always been to be able to actually see inside the human body, hence the "Vision" part of her screen name. She's claimed to be able to see down to the molecular level and that some molecules or atoms appear a particular color, and she's also described the colors of some organs inside the human body, but that's the only references to colors I recall.

That's why she was tested on which side the kidney was on. Not only did it increase the odds without having to find more subjects, it was perfectly in line with what she claimed to be able do.

In retrospect, the biggest flaw in the test was that a wrong answer could seem dramatic, due to the two-step announcing process, which is why the sharpshooter's fallacy is so tempting.

As far as her saying she's just learning about her abilities, that's part of her way of manipulating people to keep them interested. It works on new people who haven't followed the whole history of her self-investigation. Here's my take on it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Last I recall, her claim has always been to be able to actually see inside the human body, hence the "Vision" part of her screen name. She's claimed to be able to see down to the molecular level and that some molecules or atoms appear a particular color, and she's also described the colors of some organs inside the human body, but that's the only references to colors I recall.

That's why she was tested on which side the kidney was on. Not only did it increase the odds without having to find more subjects, it was perfectly in line with what she claimed to be able do.

In retrospect, the biggest flaw in the test was that a wrong answer could seem dramatic, due to the two-step announcing process, which is why the sharpshooter's fallacy is so tempting.

As far as her saying she's just learning about her abilities, that's part of her way of manipulating people to keep them interested. It works on new people who haven't followed the whole history of her self-investigation. Here's my take on it.

That's exactly right, Pup, and most of the reason I find this whole thread so flabbergasting.

Here we now find ourselves arguing about whether Anita is capable of beating chance in a guessing game when her original claim is to have molecular-level x-ray vision.


viz:

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.

What does chance have to do with this, really? Either she can see molecules (or kidneys) inside bodies or she can't.

I'm finding it very difficult to believe that anyone thinks further testing is required to determine whether she can.

No wonder I'm such a lousy sceptic - it seems like a complete no-brainer to me.

 

[chillzero]

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.

This.
She claimed she could look at a specific area of a body and see what was there. So she was looking at 12 individual body areas to see whether each contained a kidney or not. It could have been other non-paired internal organs (such as appendix) but by choosing the kidneys, she may have realised this could be conflated by people not paying attention to thinking she had to idfentify something about the person and not the specific body areas. Had it been identifying who has their appendix out, she would never have scored 'correctly' for guessing person 3 when in actuality it was person 4 - which is essentially what happened when she guessed the wrong kidney in the right person.

Let's simplify it even further (at the risk of being insulting to your intelligence).
Say you claim to be able to see cakes through glass. You agree to a protocol where you were presented with 12 glass boxes, set up in pairs - six people hold one box in each hand - people numbered 1 to 6 and boxes all labelled L (left) or R (right). You had to see which one did not have a cake in it. You would be wrong to say you see no cake in box 4L when it is in box 4R. Not half right, not right because it was the right person, wrong box. WRONG.

Jeff and co - if you still argue that you have not misunderstood the protocol - please show me how this example is not a valid comparison.

 

[Locknar]

Good point, but finding a person with a missing kidney is pretty close to finding a missing kidney itself.

This is a personal assessment, or one based on the IIG protocol?

Assuming this is a personal assessment, how so? Eliminate the "people" aspect of this for a moment and consider each kidney (or more accurately, kidney area) as a container.

In the end, each test was comprised of X number of containers, were X-1 were full...1, and only 1, was empty. The test was to identify the empty container in each trial; She picked a container that was full. This is not is not "pretty close" at all, but rather a clear miss. UY discussed this (much more in-depth then I) some time ago, and it is a accurate representation (or "visual" if you will) of the test that was conducted.

If this is a assessment based on the protocol, can you show were it allows for "pretty close" (ie. partial credit)? I asked Nigel the same question here.

As a tanget...if a similar test were set up (as has been done in the past) for a dowser...and they picked a empty box next to a box containing water...would you allow for partial credit (ie. "pretty close") declare it a miss? Would the fact they indicated there was water in the room be "pretty close?"

SB makes predictions....say she predicted 10 years ago there would be a mine collapse in China in 2000; there was just one recently. 10 years, in the span of time, that is "pretty close" right? Or maybe she meant the one that just occured in WV (USA)...given the vastness of the universe, ~11,550 miles is "pretty close"?

I'll not belabor the point. I suggest that ambiguity aside, "pretty close" gives credit/credence where none is due.

 

[GeeMack]

Good point, but finding a person with a missing kidney is pretty close to finding a missing kidney itself.

Not if you understand the claim, the protocol, the test, and the results. But you're pretty much the only one still living with the misunderstanding that there was something relevant about making two wrong guesses on a single person. Several simple explanations have been offered, all of which you haven't been able (willing?) to understand.

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

Yeah, right. Nice hand wave, Jeff. I pointed it out to you, so your statement above is untrue. It's been explained often enough and simply enough, and not just by me. The fact that you are being steadfastly and willfully ignorant doesn't mean it hasn't been pointed it out. Nobody else needs to take responsibility for your inability to understand this simple stuff. The evidence, whether you like it or not, shows that your argument has failed.

 

[LightinDarkness]

I promised I wouldn't post here again, but I can't help myself...but I'm not going to be talking about VFF. I promise I'll stop getting in the thread, just wanted to make this observation:

Let us say that we are conversing with someone who has claimed to see ghosts. Lots of people do that, its a fairly standard woo claim. There are a variety of explanations for why someone might see a ghost:

1) Ghosts actually exist and can be seen.
2) Ghosts are a cultural artifact representing the human desire to believe we don't cease to exist, and thus we "see" things that we believe are ghosts that have otherwise non-paranormal explanations.
3) People suffering from mental illness issues can have delusions where they see apparitions that are not really there.

And the list could go on. There is an entire universe of explanations for for why someone might claim to be ghosts.

As skeptics, are we not supposed to use reason and logic to assign probabilities (based on past evidence) and explore all of the most likely possibilities based on this?

In such a case, why on earth would we entertain the notion that ghosts are real and treat it as equally likely as any other explanation, when past evidence on the existence of ghosts STRONGLY suggest other more rational explanations are much more likely? To focus on the paranormal claim as if it were a perfectly valid explanation and to absolutely ignore the FACT that alternative explanations exist and have a mountain of evidence to support them would be the opposite of rational thinking.

By the way, the Rational Alchemy "response" to the threads about them was pathetic and disgusting. I have never seen three "skeptics" embrace such a strawman argument in my life. The general theme was "we won't bully people who believe different than us" - lovely, NO ONE is asking you to or promoting that you should. There is a difference difference between conducting interviews with critical analysis (critical, as in CRITICAL THINKING) of woo claims and "bullying" or "having a shouting match" - but they know that. Its just so much easier to embrace the strawman than admit what a total failure their "interview" was in demonstrating rational thinking.

 

[GeeMack]

I'll not belabor the point. I suggest that ambiguity aside, "pretty close" gives credit/credence where none is due.

The right thing for Jeff to do at this point is, of course, to support his position with something more than the bold assertions, hand waves, and untrue statements he's offered so far. Or, probably even better yet, since he's apparently unable to offer more than that, and being one of the top dogs in the administration of a somewhat prestigious skeptics' organization, it would be quite refreshing, and a damned good example of quality skepticism, to see him admit that his assessment has been shown to be incorrect.

(Oh, yeah, like that's going to happen. )

 

[desertgal]

To focus on the paranormal claim as if it were a perfectly valid explanation and to absolutely ignore the FACT that alternative explanations exist and have a mountain of evidence to support them would be the opposite of rational thinking.

Exactly.

If skepticism is exploration, as Jeff Wagg has said, then that should include exploring rational alternative explanations to a paranormal claim.

Anita has made a number of claims, from seeing inside the body at the molecular level, to interacting with ghosts.
We suggested that mental illness might be a rational alternative explanation for her claims.
She said it isn't.
We said, "Show us that it isn't."
She refused.
Thus, it remains to be confirmed or dismissed.

We said that false/created memory might be a rational alternative explanation for her claims.
She said it isn't.
We said, "Show us."
She refused.
Thus, it remains to be confirmed or dismissed.

She said that her 'abilities' are caused by synesthesia.
We said, "Show us."
She refused.
Thus, it remains to be confirmed or dismissed.

She said she could see when kidneys are missing. She established this by making a 'postdiction' about Dr. Carlson's missing kidney.
We said, "Show us."
She failed. The claim was falsified.

In the interest of skepticism, wouldn't it be more effective to encourage Anita to explore rational alternative explanations first, before encouraging her to further test an ability that has already been falsified?

 

[zooterkin]

Not if you understand the claim, the protocol, the test, and the results. But you're pretty much the only one still living with the misunderstanding that there was something relevant about making two wrong guesses on a single person.

I don't think Nigel Aves has acknowledged retreating from this position, either, and he was the more enthusiastic proponent of it in the podcast.

GeeMack / Locknar... untrue, it's about person and then kidney. As per the protocol published on the IIG website. It's all in the interpretation of the "and" but statistically it matter little.

 

[Akhenaten]

I almost hesitate to bring it up at this late stage, but the suggestion that Anita try to determine the presence/absence of kidneys in shoeboxes would have avoided a lot of this confabulation, wouldn't it?

 

[zooterkin]

I almost hesitate to bring it up at this late stage, but the suggestion that Anita try to determine the presence/absence of kidneys in shoeboxes would have avoided a lot of this confabulation, wouldn't it?

Might have been harder to find volunteers, though.

 

[remirol]

Might have been harder to find volunteers, though.

That's what hotel rooms, bathtubs, and ice are for.

 

[Akhenaten]

I almost hesitate to bring it up at this late stage, but the suggestion that Anita try to determine the presence/absence of kidneys in shoeboxes would have avoided a lot of this confabulation, wouldn't it?

Might have been harder to find volunteers, though.

This is exactly the way in which the whole test of Anita's kidney-finding ability went completely stupid.

Her original claim with respect to locating kidneys, resulting from the postdiction of Dr Carlson's missing one, was that she could actually see the things inside bodies.

It seemed at the time to some of us that if she did indeed have this x-ray vision ability then the simplest way to test it would be to use kidneys in boxes (from the butcher shop, zoots, you ghoul )

That's when the backpedalling started, with Anita making all manner of excuses why such a test was unviable, and that somehow the ability depended on the kidneys being alive and attached, or some such waffle. I don't believe it was ever explained why the lack of whatever indicated a live, attached kidney could not be used , by process of elimination, to achieve a result.

What was definitely never explained was why someone who claimed to be able to identify gasses in metal cylinders was, when push came to shove, unable to identify a kidney in a shoebox.

I'd still like to hear a rational explanation for that, but I'll bet I never do.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's what hotel rooms, bathtubs, and ice are for.

That's where Senex entered the discussions, I believe.

 

[desertgal]

What was definitely never explained was why someone who claimed to be able to identify gasses in metal cylinders was, when push came to shove, unable to identify a kidney in a shoebox.

Or, for that matter, unwilling to identify gasses in metal cylinders.

I'd still like to hear a rational explanation for that, but I'll bet I never do.

To quote Bill Cosby: "How long can you tread water?"