VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[wardenclyffe]

I have no idea if this topic will be discussed again on the Rational Alchemy podcast this week, but you can listen live on Saturday night at 11pm EDT at http://krfcfm.org/listen.php

Just sayin',
Ward

 

[Rodney]

The odds of Anita getting all three locations correct were 1 in 1,728. The odds of her getting anything else were 1,727 in 1,728 or 99.94%. It is foolish to look at getting something else and pretend it means something.

By this logic, if Anita had agreed to a test where she had to get all five persons and locations correct (odds of doing by random chance: 1 in 248,832) to pass and got all five persons but only four locations correct, her performance would have fallen into the same 248,831 out of 248,832 category as if she had gotten nothing right. No matter hard the spinmeisters here work, the fact remains that Anita's performance failed by only an eyelash of achieving the generally accepted level of statistical significance (P=.05, or 1 chance in 20). If she achieved her results because of a poorly defined test, take it up with the IIG, but don't try and pretend that her performance was just a ho-hum Regen Traynor-type.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

So the bottom line here is that while I was impressed with VFF beating 1:4 odds (even though that WASN'T the protocol), few other people are.

Ok, fine, I can live with that.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

The reason the majority of us are not impressed with her performance at the IIG test is simply because she stated repeatedly and frequently that she is 100% accurate, and has no recorded incidence of ever being wrong. She hung much significance on her ability being perfect and infallible. Therefore, those of us who have followed this saga from the beginning cannot help but see anything less than a perfect score as being a complete and utter failure. Thus, right person but wrong side is as much of a complete failure as if she picked the completely wrong person.

If she had a power that only worked some of the time, or occasionally showed her the wrong side, or whatnot, then a different protocol would have been designed to test this hypothetical occasionally fallible ability. If I say I can tell what card you pick out of a deck 3 times out of 3, with a perfect score, as I have never been wrong a single time in the past, then my guessing 1 out of the 3 cards wrong, one perfectly correctly, and one being the right value but the wrong suit, would not be considered by most to be statistically significant, or even interesting enough to warrant another test. My claim of perfect accuracy in determining the card you select would be more than falsified. As someone once said, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and dung fights, because dung splatters.

 

[Uncayimmy]

By this logic, if Anita had agreed to a test where she had to get all five persons and locations correct (odds of doing by random chance: 1 in 248,832) to pass and got all five persons but only four locations correct, her performance would have fallen into the same 248,831 out of 248,832 category as if she had gotten nothing right.

Yes, Rodney, that is correct. You finally understand! You cannot test for one thing and grade that test on something else. Where your test is misleading is that you did not cite in advance what you consider significant. I, for one, would call getting four out of five locations correct statistically significant because the chances are 1 in 4,454. Getting 4 out of 5 is less likely than getting 3 out of 3. Therefore, she would have passed.

By definition, the "something else" category would not have been 248,831 out of 248,832 because that's not where the bar was set. It would have been 4,453 out of 4,454. That would have included getting 3 out of five correct or fewer, which is 1 in 196.

As for getting the fifth person correct, that wasn't part of the test, was it? We could certainly make it part of the test if we wanted to. We would treat us just as I described. You're not allowed to do it after the fact because if you do, you end believing, well, all the stuff that you believe.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So the bottom line here is that while I was impressed with VFF beating 1:4 odds (even though that WASN'T the protocol), few other people are.

Ok, fine, I can live with that.

The protocol is the set of rules for the test. Don't confuse that with the requirements for passing. The IIG was entitled to set their requirements at any level they wanted to. With three groups of 12 having one target each, they had the following choices.

1 Correct - 22.00% Chance
2 Correct - 1.96% Chance
3 Correct - 0.06% Chance

When you say that you can "live with" being "impressed" by the mundane, are you speaking on behalf of yourself or the JREF? Do you understand that either way, every two-bit skeptic on the planet can now quote "Jeff Wagg, JREF Communications and Outreach Manager" as finding their stupifyingly insignificant results as impressive? Can you see how some of us may view that as a problem?

Since you are impressed with her results, would an affidavit by you suffice to meet the academic credentials of the JREF MDC? Can you sign something that reads, "I have personally witnessed the phenomenon claimed by "(applicant's name)" in his/her application for the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, and I can offer no rational explanation for it."

 

[Jeff Wagg]

The protocol is the set of rules for the test. Don't confuse that with the requirements for passing. The IIG was entitled to set their requirements at any level they wanted to. With three groups of 12 having one target each, they had the following choices.

1 Correct - 22.00% Chance
2 Correct - 1.96% Chance
3 Correct - 0.06% Chance

When you say that you can "live with" being "impressed" by the mundane, are you speaking on behalf of yourself or the JREF? Do you understand that either way, every two-bit skeptic on the planet can now quote "Jeff Wagg, JREF Communications and Outreach Manager" as finding their stupifyingly insignificant results as impressive? Can you see how some of us may view that as a problem?

Since you are impressed with her results, would an affidavit by you suffice to meet the academic credentials of the JREF MDC? Can you sign something that reads, "I have personally witnessed the phenomenon claimed by "(applicant's name)" in his/her application for the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, and I can offer no rational explanation for it."

I said I could live with the disagreement. I never said "I can live with the mundane," as you have stated.

I would not issue such an affidavit, because what I saw was not impressive enough for me to do so. Also, I can offer many rational explanations for what I observed, the least likely of which is paranormal ability.

 

[Rodney]

The protocol is the set of rules for the test. Don't confuse that with the requirements for passing. The IIG was entitled to set their requirements at any level they wanted to. With three groups of 12 having one target each, they had the following choices.

1 Correct - 22.00% Chance
2 Correct - 1.96% Chance
3 Correct - 0.06% Chance

Those all or nothing choices aren't the only ones the IIG could have selected. There was nothing to prevent the IIG from specifying exactly what Anita achieved: 2 persons correct and 1 location correct -- 5.67% chance. Or they could have specified a more stringent 3 persons correct and two locations correct -- 0.23% chance. Anita's claim involved a two-step process -- to be able to detect which subject in a group of six is missing a kidney and to further identify which kidney is missing -- and it's conceivable that she has the ability to do the former at an above chance level, but not the latter at an above chance level.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Those all or nothing choices aren't the only ones the IIG could have selected. There was nothing to prevent the IIG from specifying exactly what Anita achieved: 2 persons correct and 1 location correct -- 5.67% chance. Or they could have specified a more stringent 3 persons correct and two locations correct -- 0.23% chance. Anita's claim involved a two-step process -- to be able to detect which subject in a group of six is missing a kidney and to further identify which kidney is missing -- and it's conceivable that she has the ability to do the former at an above chance level, but not the latter at an above chance level.

You are incorrect again, Rodney. Your arguments were destroyed several times already, but like VFF, you have found fertile ground in which to sow your seeds of incredulity. Anita's claims are well documented. You can pretend that her claims of seeing down to the atomic level are irrelevant, but they are not. Everything about the protocol has to be evaluated in that context.

What you are doing is playing a semantic game simply because the coordinates for each kidney required a person and a side. By your absurd logic, she should get "credit" for guessing left. After all, there was no reason the results could not have been submitted as "Left 12" rather than "12 Left." The end result would have been no different had the claim been that Anita would identify the side then further identify the person.

The key point here is that neither side in advance said anything about identifying the person as being of any value whatsoever. The reason I did not list those potential cases as "choices" for the IIG in terms of odds is that it is unrelated to the claim.

Remember, Anita has repeatedly stated that she can detect all sorts of medical conditions. Suppose she had missed all three targets but all three of the people she chose had different serious, unseen medical conditions such as diabetes, ulcers, tumors, or even vasectomies or ovarian cysts, two conditions she claimed to have done before. You could just as easily argue that her abilities did something, right? If her ability is so vague that she can't "sense" at the atomic level the left from the right, maybe she was "sensing" lung cancer. Who the hell knows? Like GeeMack said, what if all three had green underwear?

Take a look at VFF's medical questionnaire and how many different things she thinks she can detect. In addition to something like 70 items, she still managed to fill in "extra" stuff in the comments field while reading just five subjects in her "study."

If Anita wanted to get credit for detecting the person, she should have said as much. Coming up with it after the fact is patently silly. I grow weary of explaining this to you.

 

[Akhenaten]

You are incorrect again, Rodney. Your arguments were destroyed several times already, but like VFF, you have found fertile ground in which to sow your seeds of incredulity.


<polite snip of the same explanation that's been given to the same people about a gajillion times>

This is getting to be a little repetetive, isn't it.

Why do people insist on claiming that Anita has done something interesting or significant with her little guessing game.

Are we supposed to ignore that her claim is to have x-ray vision, zoomable down to molecular level?

The IIG set up a demonstration to show that she doesn't. It showed that, beyond any kind of reasonable doubt.

It's over. The claim is falsified.

 

[Uncayimmy]

This is getting to be a little repetetive, isn't it.

Why do people insist on claiming that Anita has done something interesting or significant with her little guessing game.

Are we supposed to ignore that her claim is to have x-ray vision, zoomable down to molecular level?

The IIG set up a demonstration to show that she doesn't. It showed that, beyond any kind of reasonable doubt.

It's over. The claim is falsified.

Not so fast there, mate. Please check the following quotes from Jeff Wagg.

Failing a test doesn't disprove a claim. It merely shows that the claimant failed that test. The JREF allows people to reapply because of this. If your claim is that reindeer fly, and you toss one off the roof only to have it fall to its death, you have merely failed to support your claim. You haven't proved that reindeer can't fly or even that that single reindeer can't fly. It may have chosen not to, or couldn't due to circumstances not stated.
<snip>
I don't really care; I'm just pointing out that of all the challenges I've watched, hers was among the most impressive. Does that mean I think she won? No. Does it mean I think she has powers? No. It means what I said and nothing more.

(emphasis added)

He states quite clearly that her claim has not been falsified and that her test was among the most impressive he's ever seen.

James Randi commented in Anita's school newspaper:

http://www.nineronline.com/viewpoint/unc-charlotte-s-student-inner-sight-1.2056167
The item on Anita Ikonen says that her webpage -- www.visionfromfeeling.com -- has details about her claims. None appear there. These vapid "medical" claims are made all over the world, and we've tested many of them over the years. They all fail, yet the victims continue to believe, and suffer financial and emotional loss as results. Ikonen will fail, too, but it will make no difference. The suckers will go in in their delusions, and she'll laugh all the way to the bank...

This was before her "impressive" test where she "beat moderately impressive odds." I wonder if he's changed his mind?

Me? Well, I'm with you. Unfortunately, it looks like VFF has a new lease on life with the updates on her website that have come as a direct result of the Rational Alchemy interview and personal conversation with Jeff. No longer can we skeptics categorically say, "Your test was a complete failure, and your claims have been falsified. There's nothing worth looking at." She's got somebody more prominent than any of us with a steel-toed boot keeping the door from being slammed. That means folks like Rodney will speak out after months of being quiet.

 

[TSR]

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

.
You let me go out and bring in a pregnant elephant... and who was standing underneath when it gave birth? WAAAAAAP and right on top of old Noah.....
.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I said I could live with the disagreement. I never said "I can live with the mundane," as you have stated.

Please do not use sophistry. In order for you to "live with" the disagreement, you have to be able to "live with" your belief. Your belief is that beating 1 in 4 odds is impressive. The definition of mundane is, "everyday, ordinary, or banal." Every single day, countless times per day, 1 in 4 random events occur, and people don't think twice about them.

Therefore, it is entirely fair to say you are content to live with finding the mundane impressive. I did not use quotation marks, which is what I would have done were I quoting you.

I would not issue such an affidavit, because what I saw was not impressive enough for me to do so. Also, I can offer many rational explanations for what I observed, the least likely of which is paranormal ability.

So, in a civil case where Anita was demanding to be tested by the JREF, I wonder how a judge would rule considering you, clearly qualified as an academic as well as an agent of the JREF, said, "she did beat moderately impressive odds" and that you were "impressed." You also put her on your podcast and stated that you felt she needed to be tested again. This could also be argued along with other blogs and websites as press coverage. Seems to me she has a prima facie case that the JREF should negotiate with her rather than reject the application outright.

You also missed these questions.

When you say that you can "live with" being "impressed" by the mundane, are you speaking on behalf of yourself or the JREF?

Do you understand that either way, every two-bit skeptic on the planet can now quote "Jeff Wagg, JREF Communications and Outreach Manager" as finding their stupifyingly insignificant results as impressive?

Can you see how some of us may view that as a problem?

So, while I understand you said earlier in the thread that you didn't have time to deal with all of this, you are the one who opened Pandora's box. Take your time, but please be thorough.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Please do not use sophistry. In order for you to "live with" the disagreement, you have to be able to "live with" your belief. Your belief is that beating 1 in 4 odds is impressive. The definition of mundane is, "everyday, ordinary, or banal." Every single day, countless times per day, 1 in 4 random events occur, and people don't think twice about them.

Therefore, it is entirely fair to say you are content to live with finding the mundane impressive. I did not use quotation marks, which is what I would have done were I quoting you.

I love how you use sophistry to defend your claim that I was. If you misstate what I originally stated, I will correct you.

So, in a civil case where Anita was demanding to be tested by the JREF, I wonder how a judge would rule considering you, clearly qualified as an academic as well as an agent of the JREF, said, "she did beat moderately impressive odds" and that you were "impressed." You also put her on your podcast and stated that you felt she needed to be tested again. This could also be argued along with other blogs and websites as press coverage. Seems to me she has a prima facie case that the JREF should negotiate with her rather than reject the application outright.

Your site could as well. Have you considered that?

You also missed these questions.

When you say that you can "live with" being "impressed" by the mundane, are you speaking on behalf of yourself or the JREF?

I've stopped answering these questions, because you seem to want me to state "who I am" for each and every sentence.

The things I've said in this thread I've said as myself. The things I said on Rational Alchemy... I've also said as myself, though in my capacity as a co-host on the show.

Do you understand that either way, every two-bit skeptic on the planet can now quote "Jeff Wagg, JREF Communications and Outreach Manager" as finding their stupifyingly insignificant results as impressive?

I didn't find them "stupefyingly insignificant" because in my opinion, they weren't. And yes, I understand that. So be it. I've explained why I think that, and people can accept it or not.

Can you see how some of us may view that as a problem?

Yes.

So, while I understand you said earlier in the thread that you didn't have time to deal with all of this, you are the one who opened Pandora's box. Take your time, but please be thorough.

I try.

 

[bookitty]

I have no evidence whatsoever that Bookitty told her friend or anyone else anything about test. I have no evidence whatsoever that Bookitty said anything to Anita about it. I do know that Bookitty is now a staunch defender of what she believes is Anita's skeptical transformation.

Jeez. I am not a staunch defender of anything. If you'd pull your head out of your bias, you would know that. All I have ever said was that Anita's current interest in skepticism was a good sign and perhaps it would be beneficial to treat her like a human being.

Why do you need Anita to be defined by your view of her?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I love how you use sophistry to defend your claim that I was. If you misstate what I originally stated, I will correct you.

Is this the "I know you are but what am I?" defense? I did not misstate anything. I restated it in my own words and when challenged, defended it. This is how things work on the forums.

Your site could as well. Have you considered that?

Yes, I have. Those who have followed the saga know that this was a very real consideration, but my one site hardly counts as a media presence. Even if that happened, I wasn't all that worried because at the time because I figured no academic would find any of her impossible claims impressive, so the JREF was out of the question.

She had been spinning her wheels for 18 months with the IIG when my site was started, and was dead in the water (sorry to mix metaphors). I seriously doubted she would ever get to the point of a test with the IIG. I figured if she did, she would fail miserably, and no academic at that point would call her results impressive.

I was wrong.

I've stopped answering these questions, because you seem to want me to state "who I am" for each and every sentence.

I'd settle for declarations by post. However, your response dramatically demonstrates the point I made early on in this thread. Pretending that there are different Jeffs is foolhardy. You can't even be bothered to do try.

The assumption will always be that when Jeff Wagg, Communications and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation, "an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and the supernatural" speaks out on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and the supernatural, he is representing the JREF.

At this point I think I have made the point clear. There is no need to clarify which Jeff is writing because for all practical purposes, there's only one Jeff who speaks out publicly on these particular topics.

I didn't find them "stupefyingly insignificant" because in my opinion, they weren't.

Yes, I know your opinion. I expressed my own, and I believe that shared by the many people here who think that if 1.5 billion people can guess something, it's not worth even mentioning at dinnertime with the kids.

What's frustrating is that so far you have simply made assertions and not supported your argument with any reasoning. You've given us nothing to justify your position except your own admission that stats are a weak point with you. Sometimes it's best not to comment at all if one does not have the expertise.

And yes, I understand that. So be it. I've explained why I think that, and people can accept it or not.

I know you think that you've explained it, but I find myself unable to articulate why you consider a 1 in 4 event as impressive. Perhaps another member will chime in to explain it to me because it appears you and I are not making much headway.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Jeez. I am not a staunch defender of anything. If you'd pull your head out of your bias, you would know that. All I have ever said was that Anita's current interest in skepticism was a good sign and perhaps it would be beneficial to treat her like a human being.

I disagree with your assessment and stand by my opinion. I do not wish debate it and will not because it is simply a minor point that caused me to raise my eyebrow a wee bit further than it already was raised. The only relevant question is whether you did something deliberately or otherwise that may have influenced the outcome of the IIG test. I brought it up because it seems the crew at RA were unaware of the amazing coincidence that Anita's one correct guess was your friend whom Anita offered to do a reading on when you shared the story of his injuries.

I mean, if Jeff thinks 1 in 4 is impressive, I can only imagine his reaction to this.

Why do you need Anita to be defined by your view of her?

You are assuming facts not in evidence and continuing to ignore facts already introduced. Just so you know, this thread is not about me. It is about the repercussions of VFF's appearance on Rational Alchemy and the associated events. The thread briefly ventured into why I personally was not invited as an expert guest to provide the knowledge and background they so desperately needed, and why no other suitable alternative (I could name several people who would have made excellent choices) was considered. That question has been answered.

So, please refrain from trying to engage me with loaded questions about my motivations regarding VFF. I have covered this subject at length with you elsewhere and have no desire for a repeat performance, and resent you claiming I have "needs" in some regard. If you have concerns about the StopVFF site that you'd rather not discuss in the StopVFF forums, there is a thread here dedicated to my site. If you are unable to find it, send me a PM.

Thank you for your time. It is appreciated.

 

[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.

Ooh look! The topic!

 

[GeeMack]

I know you think that you've explained it, but I find myself unable to articulate why you consider a 1 in 4 event as impressive. Perhaps another member will chime in to explain it to me because it appears you and I are not making much headway.

Just a guess, but maybe because the word "kidney" appears in both Anita's claim before the test, which was something to the effect of, "I can look through skin, fat, flesh, and blood to see in an 3D visual way every last molecule of every internal organ including the kidneys in someone's body," and Anita's lie after the results were made public, which was something like, "Wow, success! I guessed which person had a kidney missing in two out of three tests," and Jeff has mistaken that word "kidney" from the claim and the lie to be meaningfully related?

It also might be that Jeff's notion about what is impressive is vastly different from that of what seems to be most people's threshold. Maybe he really does say, "Wow," when he reaches for a jelly bean without looking and pulls a black one, even if one out of every five in the bag are black. Maybe he truly is impressed when he cuts a deck of cards and, get ready for it, cuts right to any spade!

I surely wouldn't find those examples impressive, and I know you wouldn't, but Jeff did admit to not having an especially good understanding of statistics. Although with all the simple examples offered right here in this thread, I can see why you might be baffled at his continued apparent lack of understanding.

 

[Locknar]

I've (again) had to move several off-topic posts to AAH...please stay on topic, and just to finish the bouquet garni I'll add be civil/polite and address the argument not the attack the arguer (Rules 0, 11, 12).

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