VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[zooterkin]

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 )

Well, I know you Egyptian gods have a somewhat cavalier attitude to whether organs remain internal or not.

...
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.

Thanks, that's a bit of the history I'd missed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, I know you Egyptian gods have a somewhat cavalier attitude to whether organs remain internal or not.

Indeed.

*​

Thanks, that's a bit of the history I'd missed.

No problemo, mate. Mind you, a great many people who are currently involving themselves in this fiasco are likewise unaware of its history.

If only there was some resource available online to educate people and prevent such ignorance.

Ah well.



* This is the hieroglyphic logogram for 'viscera'.

 

[remirol]

* This is the hieroglyphic logogram for 'viscera'.

What's the logogram for "circa 200 B.C. Mason Jar"?

 

[Locknar]

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. )

Depends. If his/their assessment is based on the IIG Protocol I'd agree there seems little room for discussion; it simply does not support/introduce the ambiguity Jeff/Nigel seem willing to introduce. If it does, they have yet to indicate where.

If this is a personal assessment, I have no issue with them supporting additional/new tests in principal - but they need to make it clear this is, in fact, a personal assessment and NOT supported by the results of the IIG test. Beyond this, it is simply personal opinion....though an opinion that SB, dowsers, and a cast of countless others would be willing to exploit.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Let me try another approach.

If a dowser claims a 100% success rate, is tested and can't meet the protocol of the challenge, they have failed.

Should they be retested? Resources permitting, of course they should.

Why? Because belief in dowsing still persists. All we can do as skeptics is say "Show us, and we'll believe." If we stop saying "Show us," we lose.

Many dowsers have failed, even after an open test, and have claimed it was sunspots, electromagnetic interference or whatever. I seriously doubt these claims, but since I am not that person, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And that doubt is the doubt of possibility, not likelihood. I've seen nothing to think that dowsing was real.

We can conjecture and posit that the person might be lying, or be seriously deluded or whatever. But the only tool at our disposal is another test.

Now, if I notice during the dowsing test that the rods tend to bend towards lights, I might note that as "interesting." If the claimant thinks this is significant, they could decided to have another test. In fact, they can decide to have another test for any reason at all. It's up to the organization to decide whether they're willing to test or not, and that's not a subject I've addressed.

To be clear: I'm not faulting the IIG or their conclusions. Their stated results are exactly correct. There is NO ambiguity in the results at all, as is proper. However, what I observed was interesting compared against other challenges. And if VFF feels she'd like to be tested again, I think that's fine.

Sigh, one last thing... though I'm probably opening a whole new can of worms.

One thing that shouldn't be considered during a challenge is mechanism. Precautions should be taken to make sure known mechanisms are not used, but as for what paranormal method the claimant uses, it's irrelevant to the test. Conjecture about it should be avoided when designing a test. The goal is for the claimant to be satisfied that they can perform under the conditions stated and that trickery and chance are accounted for. That's it.

 

[Audible Click]

Let me try another approach.

If a dowser claims a 100% success rate, is tested and can't meet the protocol of the challenge, they have failed.

Should they be retested? Resources permitting, of course they should.

Why? Because belief in dowsing still persists. All we can do as skeptics is say "Show us, and we'll believe." If we stop saying "Show us," we lose.
Many dowsers have failed, even after an open test, and have claimed it was sunspots, electromagnetic interference or whatever. I seriously doubt these claims, but since I am not that person, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And that doubt is the doubt of possibility, not likelihood. I've seen nothing to think that dowsing was real.

We can conjecture and posit that the person might be lying, or be seriously deluded or whatever. But the only tool at our disposal is another test.

Now, if I notice during the dowsing test that the rods tend to bend towards lights, I might note that as "interesting." If the claimant thinks this is significant, they could decided to have another test. In fact, they can decide to have another test for any reason at all. It's up to the organization to decide whether they're willing to test or not, and that's not a subject I've addressed.

To be clear: I'm not faulting the IIG or their conclusions. Their stated results are exactly correct. There is NO ambiguity in the results at all, as is proper. However, what I observed was interesting compared against other challenges. And if VFF feels she'd like to be tested again, I think that's fine.

Sigh, one last thing... though I'm probably opening a whole new can of worms.

One thing that shouldn't be considered during a challenge is mechanism. Precautions should be taken to make sure known mechanisms are not used, but as for what paranormal method the claimant uses, it's irrelevant to the test. Conjecture about it should be avoided when designing a test. The goal is for the claimant to be satisfied that they can perform under the conditions stated and that trickery and chance are accounted for. That's it.

How many times are we expected to say "show us"? Two times? Ten times? Talk about opening a can of worms!

 

[Jeff Wagg]

How many times are we expected to say "show us"? Two times? Ten times? Talk about opening a can of worms!

Forever.

With each failed test, we're entitled to doubt more, and resources may dictate that we pursue more likely candidates, but we should never stop saying "Show me." Skeptics are only entitled to provisional conclusions subject to change from new data. My provisional conclusion is that VFF has no powers beyond those of any other person. Unless I'm willing to accept new data, and I can no longer hold onto my claim of skepticism.

If IIG were to say "You've had your chance, let's look at someone else," I'd be in complete support of that. But that's not the same as saying "We've proven you don't have these powers that you claim." It's impossible to prove that.

 

[Audible Click]

I may not have been clear in my post. How many times do we retest an individual?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I may not have been clear in my post. How many times do we retest an individual?

Until they drop their claim, their claim is proven, or resources are exhausted.

 

[chillzero]

Let me try another approach.

Before going off in a completely new direction, could you please take a look at posts 368 and 369 and respond, if you have a moment please?

I have no issue with retesting people at all, but the topic of this thread is the interview, and issues arising from it.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... what I observed was interesting compared against other challenges.

Just so we're all clear, what exactly was it that you found interesting? Getting a kidney correct followed by getting a person correct?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Before going off in a completely new direction, could you please take a look at posts 368 and 369 and respond, if you have a moment please?

I have no issue with retesting people at all, but the topic of this thread is the interview, and issues arising from it.

I did address them, just not directly.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Just so we're all clear, what exactly was it that you found interesting? Getting a kidney correct followed by getting a person correct?

Yes.

 

[chillzero]

I did address them, just not directly.

I don't see it - could you please clarify?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I don't see it - could you please clarify?

This is taking up too much time..

The protocol is irrelevant. I'm making no claims about the protocol at all.

There was nothing ambiguous.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Yes.

I assume you don't find guessing a coin toss to be interesting, so what is your threshold? That is, what odds must something beat before you consider it interesting? 1-in-100? 1-in-500?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I assume you don't find guessing a coin toss to be interesting, so what is your threshold? That is, what odds must something beat before you consider it interesting? 1-in-100? 1-in-500?

Coin tosses are just as interesting. If you could guess 75/100 coin tosses, I'd find that very interesting. I find what happened with VFF to be mildly interesting.

 

[chillzero]

This is taking up too much time..

I had no intention to rush you ... the great thing about the internet is that you can answer at your leisure.

The protocol is irrelevant. I'm making no claims about the protocol at all.

I'm sorry but you were, which is precisely why I worded my post (368) as I did, and I suspect the same reason for Locknar's post.

You said:

No one is saying that she did anything other than fail the IIG test. However, she did beat moderately impressive odds at finding who who was missing a kidney. I KNOW this wasn't the test... she had to also determine the side. But the point is, if she could simply tell who was missing a kidney, that would be impressive enough to win a challenge if it was possible to set one up that way.

and we are trying to point out to you - but much more so to Nigel Aves, who posted:

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.

"For this Preliminary Demonstration to be considered successful, the Applicant must correctly identify which Subject from each trial group of six was in fact missing a kidney and correctly identify which kidney (left or right) was missing."

This was about finding the person and which side the kidney is on. That quote is directly from IIG web site. So where everyone is saying "it's just about a missing kidney" are wrong and I have no clue were that information is coming from.

that she has never claimed that

she could simply tell who was missing a kidney

which is what you are basing your assertions on. The 'and' in that protocol that Nigel so casually sweeps aside is central to this issue.

So, I don't feel that I'm being unreasonable in asking for a direct answer to:

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.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Coin tosses are just as interesting. If you could guess 75/100 coin tosses, I'd find that very interesting. I find what happened with VFF to be mildly interesting.

I didn't say anything about coin tosses, I said a (singular) coin toss. That is, I'm assuming you would not consider someone beating 1-in-2 odds to be anything interesting. Would you?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I didn't say anything about coin tosses, I said a (singular) coin toss. That is, I'm assuming you would not consider someone beating 1-in-2 odds to be anything interesting. Would you?

Not sure why you're asking such questions. No, a single coin toss is not interesting.