VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Farencue]

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.

Uh huh, always pays in showbiz to research your guests first

 

[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

I lied! The show is not 11pm Eastern Time. It's 11pm Mountain Time. Sorry 'bout that.

Ward

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Money ----> Where mouth is.

Go!

 

[Drs_Res]

Darat? Is that you?

No. Question answered, thread closed.


Hello

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Where? What are you referring to?

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

Tangential to what? Did you intend to quote something in this post? It would have helped, believe me.

Now on to the actual post:

What 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.

Excellent! A subject, albeit a poorly worded one. "Rational Alchemy post" is referring, I guess, to the podcast? You do know what this thread is about, don't you?

I agree that saying something is a certain way doesn't make it so. You must obviously agree that saying things aren't a certain way is just as effective.

Given this apparent impasse, we sometimes have to rely on other sources.

Which of your sources tell you that the JREF's credibilty has not been damaged?

When you post your list of sources, I'll respond with mine.

Even if you want it to be.

I'm fairly sure you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who wants the perception that the JREF is woo-friendly to become widely held. Why do you think so many of us object to the way in which events have unfolded?

 

[Rodney]

Money ----> Where mouth is.

Go!

It's quite simple: Anita correctly identified two of the three persons who were missing a kidney, when the most likely chance outcome was that she would identify none of the three. So, either: (1) The test was flawed; (2) She got lucky; or (3) She has a paranormal ability.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's quite simple: Anita correctly identified two of the three persons who were missing a kidney, when the most likely chance outcome was that she would identify none of the three. So, either: (1) The test was flawed; (2) She got lucky; or (3) She has a paranormal ability.

My message was likewise quite simple, but apparently it needs to be even more so.

The IIG conducted a demonstration to see if Anita could see inside people's bodies and detect the presence/absence of kidneys.

They demonstrated that she could not.

If you believe otherwise, you might wish to conduct your own tests, because there's no chance that the IIG, to name but one testing agency, will be doing so at any foreseeable time.

Let's know what you discover.

 

[GeeMack]

It's quite simple: Anita correctly identified two of the three persons who were missing a kidney, when the most likely chance outcome was that she would identify none of the three. So, either: (1) The test was flawed; (2) She got lucky; or (3) She has a paranormal ability.

You forgot this one...

(4) You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. You don't understand the claim, the protocol, the test, or the results.

Did you forget I got the same answers as Anita did? Here's what actually happened. I was able to psychically determine the locations of the missing kidneys, all of them. Then I transmitted my thoughts across the country and put them in her head. Remember how it was, long before Anita made her "guesses", during the chat, I posted my answers? I intentionally posted the wrong answers so that later, when I came clean about it, that would verify that I made her guess wrong, on purpose. Do you think it was a coincidence that I got exactly the same answers as Anita but had my answers first?

 

[likelystory]

Can Anita detect missing brains?

 

[Akhenaten]

Can Anita detect missing brains?

At one stage a test was proposed which would simply demonstrate whether or not Anita could detect the presence/absence of a living person behind a screen.

Anita claimed that this would in fact be a test of 'remote viewing' and declined it on the basis that remote viewing was not (somewhat surprisingly) one of her many and varied claimed abilities.

It would seem that detection of missing brains, which would amount to more or less being able to differentiate between live and dead people, would also be covered by this explanation of Anita's as to the limits of her sooper-dooper X-ray vision.

 

[Uncayimmy]

It's quite simple: Anita correctly identified two of the three persons who were missing a kidney, when the most likely chance outcome was that she would identify none of the three. So, either: (1) The test was flawed; (2) She got lucky; or (3) She has a paranormal ability.

4) She cheated.

5) The IIG cheated to make it interesting.

6) GeeMack was able to exert his mind control powers at great distances and VFF was merely her pawn.

7) I also suggested in January 2009 that VFF might have a mind control device implanted by her mother, an Illuminati agent.

You see, Rodney, #1 we know for a fact. We just don't know to what degree the flaws affected the outcome. Number 2, what you call "luck," is simply what we know from theory and experience to be very real. Numbers 4 and 5 are possible but not likely. Numbers 3, 6, 7 and countless others are nonsense explanations. You just listed one. I added the others, which are equally valid.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

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.

I dunno, it's REALLY hard to explain "I think it's interesting enough that it warrants a second test even though the first was failed" (/sarcasm)

(Also, IIRC, Jeff's approach is far more tolerant than yours, which does lead to near endless testing. Although, from what I hear the podcast didn't do a great job of explaining this.)

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.

Ooh, insults. And while you may have done so I don't recall seeing them at all. Except saying that it was a common public perception. If you can link me to it (or even just give a post number) I'll consider the points and retract the entire 'no proof thing' (ETA: fixed to be more clearer.)

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.

By "want" I mean I'm seeing that argument repeated as a way to .. I don't know if attack is the best word.. but you get my drift.

Where? What are you referring to?

I'm refering to the general thread (To the point where I actually think I'm afraid to venture an opinion on the actual subject instead of meta commenting on some of the threads. Although, I guess I should..)

UY did address this, sorta (see above)

Tangential to what? Did you intend to quote something in this post? It would have helped, believe me.

Tangential to my actual post. Although, honestly, I don't post much in GS&P because I can rarely make a non tangental post. And I don't want to be told to take it to Tangency...[/ref]

Excellent! A subject, albeit a poorly worded one. "Rational Alchemy post" is referring, I guess, to the podcast? You do know what this thread is about, don't you?

Yes, yes it is. My apologies, I was in a rush when I left and I often confuse post for podcast. I'm trying to break the habit but I couldn't really proofread.

I agree that saying something is a certain way doesn't make it so. You must obviously agree that saying things aren't a certain way is just as effective.

Er? Can you elaborate? I *think* you mean that (for an example) "Candidate Y is not a good Christian" is pretty effective in saying that "Candidate Y is evil."

Given this apparent impasse, we sometimes have to rely on other sources.

Which of your sources tell you that the JREF's credibilty has not been damaged?

When you post your list of sources, I'll respond with mine.

Most of the people I talk to already

a) have no clue what the JREF are
b) think the JREF is full of trolls*
c) dislike miltant atheism

*I've had Randi described as a troll with good motives, but still a troll. I've actually stopped discussing skepticism with him for other reasons but.

While I'm sure it may carry weight in the woo community (..how?) I tend to not really see how the JREF's name is dragged about. Now, again, I've not seen any but VFF claim this as a victory but she would anyway so...

(Also, I don't really think that people are incapable of separating roles, although I cheerfully admit I'm being optimistic. I mean, I can think of two examples where a lot of people DON'T do it.)

I'm fairly sure you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who wants the perception that the JREF is woo-friendly to become widely held. Why do you think so many of us object to the way in which events have unfolded?

That's.. not precisely what I meant. Let me be clear. I'm saying you want the argument to be true because it largely invalidates Jeff's argument somehow.

 

[wardenclyffe]

So, I just finished listening to Rational Alchemy as it was broadcast on the radio. The show will be posted on their website sometime early in the week.

As I expected, no mention at all of VisionFromFeeling. I expect they want the subject to go away. Maybe they've just lost interest, but that seems unlikely since Jeff Wagg was posting in this thread just yesterday.

The best part of tonight's show was when Jeff Wagg was chastising journalists for not doing their research on a subject before doing a story about it. It gave me a good chuckle.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

I dunno, it's REALLY hard to explain "I think it's interesting enough that it warrants a second test even though the first was failed" (/sarcasm)

That's an assertion. The question remains: why is it interesting enough to warrant a second test? So far we've gotten, "it just is." Meanwhile, I and others have presented numerous reasons for why the results were expected, ordinary and mundane - uninteresting.

(Also, IIRC, Jeff's approach is far more tolerant than yours, which does lead to near endless testing. Although, from what I hear the podcast didn't do a great job of explaining this.)

How many people has Jeff tested multiple times? I wasn't aware he had an approach.

When do you stop? You see, Rika, an event that happens about 22% of the time will happen about 22% of the time forever. If you find a 22% event interesting, then you must be easily amused.

By contrast a 1 in 1,000 event is interesting because it's so much more rare. If it happens the first time out the gate, by all means, test it again. When you run the test 50 more times and get no more positive results, that one event is no longer interesting.

Ooh, insults. And while you may have done so I don't recall seeing them at all. Except saying that it was a common public perception. If you can link me to it (or even just give a post number) I'll consider the points and retract the entire 'no proof thing' (ETA: fixed to be more clearer.)

No, Rika, not insults. I said that your argument was useless.

When you first jumped into this thread, I replied to you with the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5777012#post5777012
I'm going to assume that you didn't bother to read the entire thread because the answer is not at all as obvious as you think it might be. Jeff seems to believe that there's some bright line between JREF Jeff and RA Jeff whereas some of us see it as far more blurry. Several of us have pointed out that no matter what there will be a perception that RA Jeff's public activities regarding skepticism will reflect on JREF Jeff and vice-versa. Many of my questions dealt specifically with JREF Jeff issues.

I guess you couldn't be bothered to research things for yourself and came back with essentially the same assertion. Here's one of my posts about the reasons the perception is there.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5771797#post5771797
The reality, however, is that if your job is Communications and Outreach Coordinator for an organization that promotes skepticism and you, in fact, reach out and communicate to people about skepticism along with another member of the organization by interviewing somebody who has inquired about being tested by your organization and who was tested by a sister organization and passing that test means this persona is automatically qualified to take your test and then come to your organization's website to defend said interview, you're representing that organization.

There's more in that post, but that pretty much sums it up. There's JREF splattered all over that interview.

• Jeff - JREF staff
• Alison - JREF staff
• IIG - Sister organization to JREF.
• VFF - JREF Forums Member, Inquired about JREF MDC, Member of IIG
• IIG Test - Had she passed she would have been automatically qualified for the MDC.
• JREF Forums - Jeff is posting here with his official title under his name.
• VFF Website - She quotes Jeff using his JREF title.

If that's not enough, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So, I just finished listening to Rational Alchemy as it was broadcast on the radio. The show will be posted on their website sometime early in the week.

As I expected, no mention at all of VisionFromFeeling. I expect they want the subject to go away. Maybe they've just lost interest, but that seems unlikely since Jeff Wagg was posting in this thread just yesterday.

The best part of tonight's show was when Jeff Wagg was chastising journalists for not doing their research on a subject before doing a story about it. It gave me a good chuckle.

Thanks for the update. I notice that the Rational Alchemy website still doesn't have a link to my site. They don't even have a link to this thread. However, the description for the podcast reads in part, "This week we were joined by Anita Ikonen, a paranormal claimant and burgeoning skeptic." (emphasis added) For those for whom English is not a first language, burgeoning means, "To begin to grow or blossom; to grow or develop rapidly."

Wow.

 

[zooterkin]

*I've had Randi described as a troll with good motives, but still a troll. I've actually stopped discussing skepticism with him for other reasons but.

You've stopped discussing skepticism with Randi?

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Do you think counting posts is a sensible way to judge people's fitness to comment?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Do you think counting posts is a sensible way to judge people's fitness to comment?

I wasn't aware that I was judging his fitness to comment. He could be totally unfit to comment and be 100% correct or vice-versa. What I pointed out is that he's a longtime member of the board who may not be familiar with the level of discourse found in most of the threads in GS&P. This was at least the second time in this thread that he made unfounded assertions when just a few minutes of research would lead him to the arguments I presented that he claimed didn't exist.

Rika seems to spend a lot of time in Politics and Social Issues. In those threads there's often a history of arguments that exist outside of the thread itself. It's a lot easier to jump into an argument on (say) health care or JonBenet Ramsey because a wealth of information exists in the media. Threads are usually "duplicates" of the same debates that take place in the media and in countless forums (nothing wrong with that). It's relatively easy to jump in on page 6 without reading the first five pages.

In GS&P quite often the only source of information is the thread itself. You actually have to read it before you start making claims that somebody is offering unsupported assertions. After all, if you present your six supporting points in page one, you're not going to repeat them every time you reference your position. So people shouldn't attack those positions until they know the reasoning behind them or know that none exists.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You've stopped discussing skepticism with Randi?

No, with the guy I chatted to.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

That's an assertion. The question remains: why is it interesting enough to warrant a second test? So far we've gotten, "it just is." Meanwhile, I and others have presented numerous reasons for why the results were expected, ordinary and mundane - uninteresting.


How many people has Jeff tested multiple times? I wasn't aware he had an approach.

When do you stop? You see, Rika, an event that happens about 22% of the time will happen about 22% of the time forever. If you find a 22% event interesting, then you must be easily amused.

By contrast a 1 in 1,000 event is interesting because it's so much more rare. If it happens the first time out the gate, by all means, test it again. When you run the test 50 more times and get no more positive results, that one event is no longer interesting.

Taking your stats at face value: Generally speaking a 22% event can be interesting although I agree that it's really common enough that it shouldn't be.

(Also, re approach: I meant in the same way that people say "he has an interesting approach to science" (i.e view or method))

No, Rika, not insults. I said that your argument was useless.

When you first jumped into this thread, I replied to you with the following:

See, that was the assertion based post, the second (which I must have overlooked, apologies on that) I don't exactly recall seeing. Again, probably overlooked it. Anyway, the insult was really, it seemed to be a forum of arguing that few posts = weak argument.

I guess you couldn't be bothered to research things for yourself and came back with essentially the same assertion. Here's one of my posts about the reasons the perception is there.


There's more in that post, but that pretty much sums it up. There's JREF splattered all over that interview.

• Jeff - JREF staff
• Alison - JREF staff
• IIG - Sister organization to JREF.
• VFF - JREF Forums Member, Inquired about JREF MDC, Member of IIG
• IIG Test - Had she passed she would have been automatically qualified for the MDC.
• JREF Forums - Jeff is posting here with his official title under his name.
• VFF Website - She quotes Jeff using his JREF title.

If that's not enough, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's.. mostly I do see things differently in that just having a title does not mean he's wearing that hat all the time. I see how (VFF) actually does argue to your point, which is fair, but I can't really say that the title means anything since by default he has to have it on (or create a seperate account which appears to be non SOP here. (and forbidden))

I can say I see your argument though. And it does have enough merit that I can't really say it's a bad one.