VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Ashles]

I don't know about "fawning" and "hagiographic," but she was a good choice for a guest. I'm saying her results are not enough to get excited about, they're merely interesting.

Like everyone else here I cannot work out any way in which these results are 'interesting'. There are two main reasons for this.

1) Anita's claim has been very specific - she can 'see' into the body to a molecular level. She has said this repeatedly - it's a type of vision to her. The examples she has previously given all back this up. Therefore her failure to get the correct side demonstrates the ability simply does not work as she claims. This is not 'interesting' because it is not what she claims.
If she 'sensed' organs, or had described her claims differently then maybe you could make a very slight (but still pretty bad) case for this being a tiny bit interesting. But as it completely contradicts her own descriptopn of her ability then it can't.

2) You keep describing this test as if it were a single trial and as I keep pointing out to anyone who will listen - this is not an isolated test! It is just one on an ever lengthening series of trials, tests, studies etc that Anita has been carrying out for years now.
Random deviations from chance are inevitable.
The more she does the more likelihood that just by chance she will demonsrate odds-beating results.
I really cannot understand why anyone would encourage her (or any paranormal claimant) to keep doing these tests because eventually she will perform above random chance. That is inevitable.
And what would that demonstrate? Nothing. But it may send her on a path that is more destructive to her and/or others.

This is really not a demonstration of critical thinking and I really am surprised that anyone could watch a paranormal claimant fail a test, yet still somehow think it was interesting.

 

[bookitty]

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.


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.

But that's what this whole thread is about. The views shared by you and members of your site. You think that VFF can only be "interesting" if judged by the events you find significant. You even imply that without reading your site and coming to the same conclusions, someone is not "qualified" to have her on a podcast.

If your site was impartial and only discussed the facts, this might be the case. It is most definitively not.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But that's what this whole thread is about. The views shared by you and members of your site. You think that VFF can only be "interesting" if judged by the events you find significant. You even imply that without reading your site and coming to the same conclusions, someone is not "qualified" to have her on a podcast.

If your site was impartial and only discussed the facts, this might be the case. It is most definitively not.

It has become an ongoing pattern with you recently to make unsupported assertions and then ignore responses to the contrary. Your argument above is simply more of the same. It's rare to read a post that so utterly misrepresents facts that are so easily verified. Your characterization of the thread is wrong. Your characterization of what I "implied" is wrong. I would advise you to start with the very first post in this thread and move forward.

If after that you still feel you need to ask about my "needs" go ahead. I probably won't answer because I don't feel the need to.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Like everyone else here I cannot work out any way in which these results are 'interesting'. There are two main reasons for this.

1) Anita's claim has been very specific - she can 'see' into the body to a molecular level. She has said this repeatedly - it's a type of vision to her. The examples she has previously given all back this up. Therefore her failure to get the correct side demonstrates the ability simply does not work as she claims. This is not 'interesting' because it is not what she claims.
If she 'sensed' organs, or had described her claims differently then maybe you could make a very slight (but still pretty bad) case for this being a tiny bit interesting. But as it completely contradicts her own descriptopn of her ability then it can't.

2) You keep describing this test as if it were a single trial and as I keep pointing out to anyone who will listen - this is not an isolated test! It is just one on an ever lengthening series of trials, tests, studies etc that Anita has been carrying out for years now.
Random deviations from chance are inevitable.
The more she does the more likelihood that just by chance she will demonsrate odds-beating results.
I really cannot understand why anyone would encourage her (or any paranormal claimant) to keep doing these tests because eventually she will perform above random chance. That is inevitable.
And what would that demonstrate? Nothing. But it may send her on a path that is more destructive to her and/or others.

This is really not a demonstration of critical thinking and I really am surprised that anyone could watch a paranormal claimant fail a test, yet still somehow think it was interesting.

You make some very good points here.

First, the interesting thing. I've watched a lot of challenges, and every one of them has fallen in the high point of bell curve of positive outcomes. This one is the only one I can recall where the results were a little bit off the top. I find this mildly interesting, but people are taking that to mean we should all stop what we're doing and launch into and investigation immediately. This is not what I'm saying. It was simply a mildly interesting result.

In retrospect, I should have talked more about my impressions of this test on the radio show, but that wasn't part of my purpose for having VFF on the show. In the future, I will make my position more clear if something like this arises again.

As for testing, as I've said, I don't think we should ever stop testing. I don't believe VFF has any paranormal ability. I don't want to encourage her to believe that she does. However, she does, and the only way to disabuse her of that is for her to keep testing and presumably failing until she realizes that there is no ability.

Unfortunately, she got one right in the IIG trial, and she is using that to bolster her belief. Fair enough; she did get that one right, so what is called for is more testing. She should be questioning why she only got one right, and not all. She should be testing and re-testing herself constantly until she gets it right every time. A challenge is like an Olympic event; you practice until you're as good as you can be.

That doesn't mean the IIG or JREF or anyone HAS to do it, it's just the only way for her to see that she doesn't actually have any power. Resources are always a problem.

VFF has expressed to me that she doesn't want to believe in these things, but she has experienced them herself, and she can't ignore that. If that's a true statement, all I can do is to tell her to keep trying.

It's quite possible that there is something else going on, as others have suggested.

 

[Moochie]

I listened to the podcast and came away feeling it was a puff piece that Montel would have been proud of. I figured that was exactly what was intended. What I've read since hasn't changed my mind.

M.

 

[Uncayimmy]

As for testing, as I've said, I don't think we should ever stop testing.

This appears at odds with the JREF changing the MDC requirements and making it more difficult for people to be tested. And "tested" is not even the right word. The MDC is a challenge for people to put up or shut up. None of the skeptical challenges I've seen approach it from a testing standpoint in the sense of scientific testing for research purposes.

I don't believe VFF has any paranormal ability. I don't want to encourage her to believe that she does. However, she does, and the only way to disabuse her of that is for her to keep testing and presumably failing until she realizes that there is no ability.

That is not the only way. Some of us theorize that she has a mental disorder, in which case proper treatment would be the proper course of action. No amount of paranormal tests can cure health issues. Some of us theorize this is mostly a grab for attention, so further testing will complicate the problem rather than solve it.

I'm curious, though, is your goal to persuade this woman to reject beliefs she has had since childhood? What you have to understand is that she has repeatedly stated that she does not want to lose her perceptions. She feels "entitled" to them. Whether they correlate with reality or not, she says, won't change the fact that she has them and enjoys them. By accepting they are not "real" she is basically forced with admitting that for most of her life she has been unable to separate fiction from reality. That's a bitter pill to swallow if it can be swallowed at all by anybody.

Unfortunately, she got one right in the IIG trial, and she is using that to bolster her belief. Fair enough; she did get that one right, so what is called for is more testing.

You keep repeating this incredibly absurd statement. No matter how many times she runs a test identical to the IIG test, she's going to have a 22% chance of getting one right in each trial of three. That will never change.

What's worse is suppose she runs the same test again and gets one right. She has a 22% chance of doing it. Some people are going to say, "Wow. She had six trials and got two right. That's an 8% or 1 in 12 chance! Incredible!" They don't understand the importance of deciding the number of trials in advance.

She should be questioning why she only got one right, and not all. She should be testing and re-testing herself constantly until she gets it right every time.

If you were actually familiar with her claims, you would know that she has made multiple claims, many of which are dirt simple to test. She has steadfastly refused to test those anymore because the few times she tried, she failed. She did, however, state categorically that if she failed the IIG test it would by definition "falsify" all of the lesser claims. Notice how she has backpedaled on that.

It is exceedingly frustrating to read these pronouncements from you when you are deliberately ignorant of the facts involved.

VFF has expressed to me that she doesn't want to believe in these things, but she has experienced them herself, and she can't ignore that. If that's a true statement, all I can do is to tell her to keep trying.

She's quite clearly lying because her actions and words over the years clearly contradict this statement. On her Alenara site she writes, "I am blessed with what I at least perceive to be extrasensory perception and am able to experience matter, molecules, atoms, and various forms of light on my own without the use of instruments."

In other places she has talked about wanting to win the Nobel Prize for proving her talents. Hell, Jeff, go read her page on Food Perceptions and tell me she doesn't want to believe. Would somebody who doesn't want to believe be telling everyone about the cures for cancer they perceive? Sure, she can throw up all the disclaimers she wants, but the facts are obvious. After all, she insists she "really, really, really did detect Dr. Carlson's missing kidney."

 

[GeeMack]

You make some very good points here.

First, the interesting thing. I've watched a lot of challenges, and every one of them has fallen in the high point of bell curve of positive outcomes. This one is the only one I can recall where the results were a little bit off the top. I find this mildly interesting, but people are taking that to mean we should all stop what we're doing and launch into and investigation immediately. This is not what I'm saying. It was simply a mildly interesting result.

Yeah, because if I slapped a deck of cards on the table and said, "I'm going to cut to a Spade," and then did it, well hot dam it's a miracle. And if after I cut the card, say a King of Spades, I were to declare, "I knew it, I knew I was going to cut to the King," then we would have something so interesting that I should be tested for the possibility of having magical powers.

What I find interesting is that anyone would consider a barely lucky guess followed by a lie to be so interesting. In fact, I find her mindset as it pertains to lying and treating people like crap to be much more interesting than one lucky turn at the guess-how-many-fingers-I'm-holding-up game.

 

[maatorc]

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

Jeff, as distinct from traditional alchemy as, for example, in http://www.alchemylab.com/history_of_alchemy.htm, just what IS rational alchemy?

 

[Farencue]

Jeff
I asked you this question back on page 3, would you please answer it here on page 13?

Why did you simply ask Anita to tell you about the ghosts she has seen when she made this statement to you on the RA show, rather than address it with her at the time?

"I recently had an experience where I tried to heal a man who is having devastating migraines, and he thinks it worked so now I'm having to investigate whether I'm a healer"

See, my problem is that she has flat out said that she tried to heal someone.

 

[Rodney]

No matter how many times she runs a test identical to the IIG test, she's going to have a 22% chance of getting one right in each trial of three. That will never change.

Nor will it ever change that, in the IIG test, Anita got two of three persons correct, as well as one of two locations correct for those persons, so that the true odds of her doing what she did by random chance was only 5.67%, rather than 22%.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Nor will it ever change that, in the IIG test, Anita got two of three persons correct, as well as one of two locations correct for those persons, so that the true odds of her doing what she did by random chance was only 5.67%, rather than 22%.

LOL! That's not the way it works, Rodney. You know better. But, hey, if you want to play games with the numbers, then you need to rerun your calculations to include the fact that according to her worksheets, she actually guessed two people in each round. It was only those pesky rules laid out in advance that forced her only provide one guess per trial.

When we play that little game, she had a 40% chance of getting one target and a 26% chance of guessing two people. What this also means is that VFF failed to detect a kidney in 11 locations where a kidney existed. This also means she picked four people as missing kidneys who were not missing kidneys - twice as many as she got "right."

But, hey, thanks for playing along.

 

[Uncayimmy]

When we play that little game, she had a 40% chance of getting one target and a 26% chance of guessing two people. What this also means is that VFF failed to detect a kidney in 11 locations where a kidney existed. This also means she picked four people as missing kidneys who were not missing kidneys - twice as many as she got "right."

Oops on the bolded part. Mea culpa. Make that 5 locations not 11.

The Correct Tally

"Successes"
1 location where a kidney was missing correctly identified as missing a kidney.

2 persons "perceived" to be missing a kidney actually missing a kidney.

Failures
5 locations where a kidney was "perceived" to be missing but was in fact present.

2 locations where a kidney was missing but was "perceived" to be present.

4 persons "perceived" to be missing a kidney who in fact had both kidneys.

What you and others who get excited about the unremarkable results above always fail to mention I will mention for you.

The test was not properly blinded.

* Anita was able to view the subjects for 30 minutes and determine approximate age as well as (to a certain extent) possible major injuries that could indicate a kidney removal because of damage.

* The one she got "correct" had recently suffered a major motorcycle accident and had multiple surgeries.

* The one she got "correct" was someone she knew about in advance, and she had offered to give this person a reading. It is not known if VFF knew he would be in the test.

* The one she got "correct" was a friend of someone on this board who is seemingly friendly with her, has corresponded with her privately, and who is her friend on Facebook.

* The above member was also a decoy in one of the trials. It is not known if VFF was aware that this member would be in the test.

* Any subject aware that the test was sponsored by the IIG could have Googled IIG Test and found out what the goal of the test was with a wee bit of effort.

* Any subject missing a kidney and aware that it was an IIG test could have found out the details very easily by Googling IIG Test Missing Kidney (top result is a thread here).

* Any subject aware of the goal, including the member here, could have blabbed.

* Any subject being aware that they were the target or not could have given nonverbal clues and probably would have.

* The majority of missing kidneys are on the left side, and to the best of my knowledge 5 of her 6 guesses were left (odds are 1 in 9 of picking left randomly 5 out of 6 times).

So, while I find it ridiculous to get excited about events that are more likely to occur than receiving a "yes" to a request of, "Do you have any sevens?" in a game of Go Fish, it's actually remarkable that she didn't do any better than she did. Hey, Rodney, maybe there's something worth investigating in that regard. You know, negative psi.

 

[Rodney]

It was only those pesky rules laid out in advance that forced her only provide one guess per trial.

Whatever Anita's methodology was, when all was said and done she achieved a result that was very nearly statistically significant. Not a spectacular result, but arguably worthy of a re-test.

 

[Drs_Res]

Whatever Anita's methodology was, when all was said and done she achieved a result that was very nearly statistically significant. Not a spectacular result, but arguably worthy of a re-test.

No.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Whatever Anita's methodology was, when all was said and done she achieved a result that was very nearly statistically significant. Not a spectacular result, but arguably worthy of a re-test.

Simply wrong. Then again, you also believe that psi is hidden within normal random variations, so your opinion in this regard not particularly valuable.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Just a quick re-post of this:

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

 

[not daSkeptic]

No.

Darat? Is that you?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I see reasonablity has gone out the window : can't agree to disagree here!

Anyway, on that tangental note - Argument to Bandwagon and No True Scotsman are in fact fallacies.

Now on to the actual post:

Okay, look. I posted this upstream a while ago, but saying it's the common perception that Jeff is talking for the JREF when he's doing a Rational Alchemy post, or a post here doesn't make it true. Even if you want it to be.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I see reasonablity has gone out the window : can't agree to disagree here!

Some people apparently can't be bothered to explain their reasoning. I, for one, have no interest in agreeing to disagree with someone who simply reasserts their position without explaining it.

Okay, look. I posted this upstream a while ago, but saying it's the common perception that Jeff is talking for the JREF when he's doing a Rational Alchemy post, or a post here doesn't make it true. Even if you want it to be.

What an incredibly useless argument. I don't believe I or anyone else has argued that simply because we believe something to be true makes it true. I, for one, have provided several reasons for my contention, none of which were "Because I said so." I know you've only posted in GS&P 23 times in three years, but you need to know that the expectations are a bit higher here when it comes to refuting arguments.

As for what I "want" something to be, that seems to be making the argument personal because my desires are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Moochie]

In fact, you cannot separate the man from the position, especially in the small world we inhabit. The damage is done, as can be seen by VfF's site. Jeff may not have intended this, but there it is.


M.