VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Susan Gerbic]

There have been many challenges and I am not familiar with all of them. How many others have gotten one or two right? Who got closest to statistical improbability?

to be honest I don't think there have been more challenges than the ones you mentioned. The Rosemary Hunter claim was that she could make Jeff Wagg pee, no measurements were done.

Most people who are doing this professionally do not want to take the challenge. The rest are mostly mentally ill. On the Amazing Adventure 5 I just came off of Bart showed us some of the letters they get at the JREF, scary! Most people can not claim what they can do. Correspondence between them and the JREF can take years to iron out what the actual claim is.

Once they have decided on what they claim to do, then both parties have to decide how to test it. That can take years as well.

Rosemary and Conne were able to get through the "paperwork" (actually there isn't that much) and do the test. Probably 99.8% of the people who say they are going to do the challenge are unable to make a claim that is testable.

Anita and Regan were the first I think that the IIG has done.

There have been lots of people tested in years past by Randi (most were dowsers) but not in the way that you would recognize as JREF now does tests. I think Randi would do a special for TV and bring in a bunch of people who claimed to be able to find running water. Or he sought out people that were making claims and then he filmed them doing whatever.

The history of the challenge is very interesting, I understand Bart is writing a book about it.

So yes, there have been tests over many years. But the ones you are mentioning are the most current. Also done in the style of the person approaches JREF and IIG then the back and forth happens.

If you haven't already seen Randi's "Secrets of the Psychic's" video, it is a must see. He goes to Russia and tests people there. Amazing! He is also writing a book right now about his years testing inside the lab. Called, "A magician in the Lab"

Sorry a long answer to your question about previous tests and what were the results. But there really haven't been any like these that I know of done before. You also must be careful that you can't compare a specific test to another specific test. They are all independent of each other. I think that is called meta-(something or other, I know someone will correct me) when you mine the studies done looking for a result, combining unalike tests, and cherry-picking which tests to keep for your results.

 

[bookitty]

to be honest I don't think there have been more challenges than the ones you mentioned. The Rosemary Hunter claim was that she could make Jeff Wagg pee, no measurements were done.

Most people who are doing this professionally do not want to take the challenge. The rest are mostly mentally ill. On the Amazing Adventure 5 I just came off of Bart showed us some of the letters they get at the JREF, scary! Most people can not claim what they can do. Correspondence between them and the JREF can take years to iron out what the actual claim is.

Once they have decided on what they claim to do, then both parties have to decide how to test it. That can take years as well.

Rosemary and Conne were able to get through the "paperwork" (actually there isn't that much) and do the test. Probably 99.8% of the people who say they are going to do the challenge are unable to make a claim that is testable.

Anita and Regan were the first I think that the IIG has done.

There have been lots of people tested in years past by Randi (most were dowsers) but not in the way that you would recognize as JREF now does tests. I think Randi would do a special for TV and bring in a bunch of people who claimed to be able to find running water. Or he sought out people that were making claims and then he filmed them doing whatever.

The history of the challenge is very interesting, I understand Bart is writing a book about it.

So yes, there have been tests over many years. But the ones you are mentioning are the most current. Also done in the style of the person approaches JREF and IIG then the back and forth happens.

If you haven't already seen Randi's "Secrets of the Psychic's" video, it is a must see. He goes to Russia and tests people there. Amazing! He is also writing a book right now about his years testing inside the lab. Called, "A magician in the Lab"

Sorry a long answer to your question about previous tests and what were the results. But there really haven't been any like these that I know of done before. You also must be careful that you can't compare a specific test to another specific test. They are all independent of each other. I think that is called meta-(something or other, I know someone will correct me) when you mine the studies done looking for a result, combining unalike tests, and cherry-picking which tests to keep for your results.

Thanks for the references, I'll definitely check them out.

I wasn't planning on anything more than a loose comparison. All this talk about what is/is not significant just made me curious about what has happened in the past. Mostly wondering if the most common result is to fail spectacularly (i. e. Sonne & Trayno) or merely within statistical probability.

It's a mild curiosity about trivia. Even if I had charts and graphs in front of me, it would be impossible to show anything significant.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

If you want to discuss test results in a meanginful manner, you need to understand the stats. Again, I recommend the Cartoon Guide to Statistics as required reading.

I have also heard good things about The Mange Guide to Statistics

 

[Uncayimmy]

Excepting the IIG test, what tests have been run regarding Anita's alleged paranormal abilities?

Would it kill you to do even a modicum of research?

* Lactobacillus testing
* Reading photographs (one was me)
* Readings of several members of her local skeptics group
* Chemical identification of crushed pills
* Survey in a mall
* Study on the streets of Charlotte
* Self-tests of "induced information"

In every case there was nothing to be seen (not even by your standards), and VFF would simply spin it to say that she had "refined" her abilities by learning what she cannot do.

On top of the above, we have other claims that have been scrutinized. Visit my website to see several of her "ghost" stories examined and determined be without factual basis but instead based on popular myth. It's not really a "test" but it's an example of her "paranormal ability" being pure bunk.

One during a Skype chat time she "sensed" my wife was in the room (no), only she was quite cryptic about it. It wasn't until weeks later I learned why VFF had asked me if my wife was there. It makes me wonder how many other other times she has thrown out stuff to people, gotten a negative, then played it off. Oh, there was also a very detailed reading about how she "senses" me at my computer. It was horribly inaccurate.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Thanks for the references, I'll definitely check them out.

I wasn't planning on anything more than a loose comparison. All this talk about what is/is not significant just made me curious about what has happened in the past. Mostly wondering if the most common result is to fail spectacularly (i. e. Sonne & Trayno) or merely within statistical probability.

It's a mild curiosity about trivia. Even if I had charts and graphs in front of me, it would be impossible to show anything significant.

I've been trying really hard to educate you about this subject, but you don't seem to be getting it because you're not lumping VFF in with Sonne and Traynor. Let me try this another way.

Suppose we test 1,000 people with VFF's test. We ask them to roll a 12-sided die to get their answers for each trial. We also ask Sonogram Lady to use her gear. Here's what the results would probably look like (roughly):

0 Correct - 770
1 Correct - 210
2 Correct - 19
3 Correct - 2 (Sonogram Lady and Some Lucky Person)

Contrary to Jeff's assertion, there's nothing at all interesting about somebody getting one correct. Lots of people will get one correct through no skill at all. If you lined everyone up shoulder to shoulder, odds are pretty good that somebody who got zero correct could reach around and pinch the butt of somebody who got one correct.

There's nothing interesting about getting two correct either. Go to any decent sized high school in the country during an assembly. Run the test, and you'll have 20 kids getting two correct through sheer luck. These false positives are expected.

What might be interesting are the two persons who got all three correct. In our case, one of them did it by sheer luck and one by skill. Can we know without watching them during the test which is which? Yes, but only if we test them again.

If we test that same group again, we will get the same rough results as above. Only this times it is extremely unlikely that the same lucky person will get lucky again. Some other lucky person will get all three correct. Meanwhile, Sonogram Lady will ace the test with no problem. That's how we separate real from chance. Still, though, if we do repeat this enough times, somebody will get lucky twice. Sonogram Lady, however, will be bored to tears and sad that nobody is paying any attention to her.

There is no "spectacular fail" involved for the 999 people who fail to get all three correct. It's entirely expected that everyone except Sonogram Lady (someone with a true ability) will get fewer than three correct. It's not "less" of a fail to get one or two correct than to get zero correct.

 

[Akhenaten]

Excepting the IIG test, what tests have been run regarding Anita's alleged paranormal abilities?

Why do you continue with your attempts to have an each way bet here by simultaneously expressing opinions about what's occurred and refusing to learn anything about the subject?

Choose one course or the other, dude, because attempting both at once just looks trollish.

 

[bookitty]

I've been trying really hard to educate you about this subject, but you don't seem to be getting it because you're not lumping VFF in with Sonne and Traynor. Let me try this another way.

Suppose we test 1,000 people with VFF's test. We ask them to roll a 12-sided die to get their answers for each trial. We also ask Sonogram Lady to use her gear. Here's what the results would probably look like (roughly):

0 Correct - 770
1 Correct - 210
2 Correct - 19
3 Correct - 2 (Sonogram Lady and Some Lucky Person)

Contrary to Jeff's assertion, there's nothing at all interesting about somebody getting one correct. Lots of people will get one correct through no skill at all. If you lined everyone up shoulder to shoulder, odds are pretty good that somebody who got zero correct could reach around and pinch the butt of somebody who got one correct.

There's nothing interesting about getting two correct either. Go to any decent sized high school in the country during an assembly. Run the test, and you'll have 20 kids getting two correct through sheer luck. These false positives are expected.

What might be interesting are the two persons who got all three correct. In our case, one of them did it by sheer luck and one by skill. Can we know without watching them during the test which is which? Yes, but only if we test them again.

If we test that same group again, we will get the same rough results as above. Only this times it is extremely unlikely that the same lucky person will get lucky again. Some other lucky person will get all three correct. Meanwhile, Sonogram Lady will ace the test with no problem. That's how we separate real from chance. Still, though, if we do repeat this enough times, somebody will get lucky twice. Sonogram Lady, however, will be bored to tears and sad that nobody is paying any attention to her.

There is no "spectacular fail" involved for the 999 people who fail to get all three correct. It's entirely expected that everyone except Sonogram Lady (someone with a true ability) will get fewer than three correct. It's not "less" of a fail to get one or two correct than to get zero correct.

Actually, I'm more curious about the results of tests that pre-date Connie Sonne. Not to judge, to compare or to come up with any conclusions but just to know. Sometimes things are just interesting for what they are. It doesn't have to be significant, it doesn't even have to mean anything.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Actually, I'm more curious about the results of tests that pre-date Connie Sonne. Not to judge, to compare or to come up with any conclusions but just to know. Sometimes things are just interesting for what they are. It doesn't have to be significant, it doesn't even have to mean anything.

I don't care about your curiosity. What I care about is your statement:
"Mostly wondering if the most common result is to fail spectacularly (i. e. Sonne & Trayno [sic]) or merely within statistical probability."

You are implying that the results were different for VFF when in reality all of the results were expected!

 

[Ashles]

Actually, I'm more curious about the results of tests that pre-date Connie Sonne. Not to judge, to compare or to come up with any conclusions but just to know. Sometimes things are just interesting for what they are. It doesn't have to be significant, it doesn't even have to mean anything.

What are you looking for that isn't on the MDC challengers forum?

Although the vast majority of those don't end up with actual tests (or often even a clear claim) which is really the only interesting thing you can draw from them.

 

[Ashles]

Actually that thread has an entry about a challenge that the whole Anita claim has reminded me of a couple of times.

Beth Clarkson - flame manipulator

Beth is a Maths lecturer who became convinced she could affect the direction of the flame on a candle.

Now what I always found interesting about that claim was that the more the protocol was discussed, the fainter the effect seemed to be so that it would only be expressed as a tiny, tiny deviation from chance.

I always wondered if the effect was so miniscule that measuring it became so difficult... how did Beth become convinced she had the ability in the first place?

Beth claimed all her own personal tests appeared conclusive, but when Kramer delves into the claim, the effect seemingly becomes much less - anything that tiny could not have possibly been noticed in everyday experienced.

So the assumption of the ability must have come before any observable reason to think it was there.

I believe the motivations behind Beth's claim may in many ways be very different from Anita's, but the parallel I feel is that, like so many of these claims, the claim is simply assumed to exist in the first place.

Also of great interest is this exchange between Beth and Kramer:

BETH: I feel that I am able to influence a flame only about 1 time in 3 attempts and I am only able to achieve a small difference when I am successful.

KRAMER: Beth, 1 out of 2 is CHANCE. You claim 1 out of 3. We require more proof than what you yourself purport to be able to offer, at best. You will NOT pass preliminary testing. It would be a complete and utter waste of time for all those involved to proceed when you are claiming to be able to do something that will not pass testing.

Additionally, as regards your statements about "confidence levels ", the matter of the applicant's "confidence level" is one of the most common excuses used after failing a test, and for backing OUT of testing, as well. You seem to have this "escape portal" prepared already.

(Bolding mine)

NB I don't doubt for a second Beth genuinely felt she had this ability and honestly appeared to want to try and keep this as quiet as possible, but wanted to test herself - I also believe Beth still posts here but the whole claim is long closed. I don't want to imply any lack of honesty on Beth's part and am not intending to bring up that claim itself for discussion only the parallels and how claims often have patterns.

Anita seems to believe her claim is unusual and unique, but there really is no aspect of it we have not seen before.

Beth's was also a particularly interesting claim because Beth lectures on mathematics and there shouldn't be anything she doesn't know about statistics, yet when applying this to her own claim she appeared to have a huige blind spot.

 

[Rodney]

Would it kill you to do even a modicum of research?

* Lactobacillus testing
* Reading photographs (one was me)
* Readings of several members of her local skeptics group
* Chemical identification of crushed pills
* Survey in a mall
* Study on the streets of Charlotte
* Self-tests of "induced information"

In every case there was nothing to be seen (not even by your standards), and VFF would simply spin it to say that she had "refined" her abilities by learning what she cannot do.

On top of the above, we have other claims that have been scrutinized. Visit my website to see several of her "ghost" stories examined and determined be without factual basis but instead based on popular myth. It's not really a "test" but it's an example of her "paranormal ability" being pure bunk.

One during a Skype chat time she "sensed" my wife was in the room (no), only she was quite cryptic about it. It wasn't until weeks later I learned why VFF had asked me if my wife was there. It makes me wonder how many other other times she has thrown out stuff to people, gotten a negative, then played it off. Oh, there was also a very detailed reading about how she "senses" me at my computer. It was horribly inaccurate.

I thought that you were referring to formal tests. If you're going to count all of the above as "tests", you need to count her claims of successes as well. My point is that, in the one true test of her alleged paranormal abilities, she did quite well, relative to what would be expected by chance (P=5.67%), even though you continue to try to pretend that her performance was much less impressive than that (P=23%).

 

[LightinDarkness]

I thought that you were referring to formal tests. If you're going to count all of the above as "tests", you need to count her claims of successes as well. My point is that, in the one true test of her alleged paranormal abilities, she did quite well, relative to what would be expected by chance (P=5.67%), even though you continue to try to pretend that her performance was much less impressive than that (P=23%).

I've watched while you tried to pull this propaganda off since November, but you really need to just stop. You've been debunked on this by SO many different people, that you continue to push this is quite amazing. Your math is wrong. You've been shown why its wrong so many times. Anita did absolutely nothing that was "impressive" or indicative of any claimed paranormal ability.

I really began wondering why you kept pushing these numbers when so many posts have been made that go into painstaking detail about why they are wrong. I just couldn't figure it out - how could anyone be this ignorant? Then I looked at the post history, and I get it now: you will promote any type of woo regardless of evidence. Homoepathy, Anita, you name it: You've supported it despite the evidence.

I think the fact that we have a select few on here still trying to defend her test and the FAILURE of the results shows that shes already building a rabid fan base in the woo community that will defend her no matter what happens. Its important to highlight why they are wrong (although in the case of Rodney, its been done so many times by so many different people no one needs to do it again), and then just move on/ignore them.

 

[GeeMack]

I thought that you were referring to formal tests. If you're going to count all of the above as "tests", you need to count her claims of successes as well.

No. You'd need to count her verifiable successes, not her claims of success. And there are no verifiable successes.

My point is that, in the one true test of her alleged paranormal abilities, she did quite well, relative to what would be expected by chance (P=5.67%), even though you continue to try to pretend that her performance was much less impressive than that (P=23%).

Your point is poorly conceived and not supported by reality. You are attempting to factor in irrelevant data. That makes you wrong. Still. Again.

Oh, and don't you remember, I got the exact same answers as Anita did in the IIG test, and I had my answers anywhere from a few minutes to over 20 minutes before she had hers. How do you account for that?

 

[GeeMack]

I've watched while you tried to pull this propaganda off since November, but you really need to just stop. You've been debunked on this by SO many different people, that you continue to push this is quite amazing. Your math is wrong. You've been shown why its wrong so many times. Anita did absolutely nothing that was "impressive" or indicative of any claimed paranormal ability.

Correct.

I really began wondering why you kept pushing these numbers when so many posts have been made that go into painstaking detail about why they are wrong. I just couldn't figure it out - how could anyone be this ignorant? Then I looked at the post history, and I get it now: you will promote any type of woo regardless of evidence. Homoepathy, Anita, you name it: You've supported it despite the evidence.

The underlying motivation for that behavior could make for an interesting discussion in itself. In another thread of course.

I think the fact that we have a select few on here still trying to defend her test and the FAILURE of the results shows that shes already building a rabid fan base in the woo community that will defend her no matter what happens. Its important to highlight why they are wrong (although in the case of Rodney, its been done so many times by so many different people no one needs to do it again), and then just move on/ignore them.

Unfortunately there are uninformed people like Jeff Wagg and Nigel Aves who will go on record in public media presentations saying there's something to these lies and fraud that should be tested for the possibility of magical powers, and people like Rodney here who misunderstand the facts so drastically that the myth stays alive.

 

[Akhenaten]

I thought that you were referring to formal tests. If you're going to count all of the above as "tests", you need to count her claims of successes as well. My point is that, in the one true test of her alleged paranormal abilities, she did quite well, relative to what would be expected by chance (P=5.67%), even though you continue to try to pretend that her performance was much less impressive than that (P=23%).

So what are you trying to say, Rodney? That your comprehensive knowledge of statistics and the laws of probabilty lead you to conclude that VisionFromFeeling may, in fact, be able see inside peoples' bodies and detect the presence/absence of kidneys?

Geeze I'm glad I'm not a skeptic. Or a statistician, for that matter.

Common sense seems to be producing much better results for me.

 

[GeeMack]

Geeze I'm glad I'm not a skeptic. Or a statistician, for that matter.

Common sense seems to be producing much better results for me.

There you go again, trying to ruin everyone's fun!

 

[tsig]

So what are you trying to say, Rodney? That your comprehensive knowledge of statistics and the laws of probabilty lead you to conclude that VisionFromFeeling may, in fact, be able see inside peoples' bodies and detect the presence/absence of kidneys?

Geeze I'm glad I'm not a skeptic. Or a statistician, for that matter.

Common sense seems to be producing much better results for me.

As did the machine at the test and no one claimed the tech operating it had any paranormal powers.

(I have powers to detect organs but it takes an x-ray machine to manifest them)

 

[Rodney]

Your math is wrong.

In what respect?

You've been shown why its wrong so many times.

No, I've only been told it's wrong. Feel free to show my analysis to a statistician, and get his/her opinion as to whether it's wrong.

 

[Rodney]

Oh, and don't you remember, I got the exact same answers as Anita did in the IIG test, and I had my answers anywhere from a few minutes to over 20 minutes before she had hers. How do you account for that?

The suspense is killing me . . .

 

[GeeMack]

The suspense is killing me . . .

If I claimed to be a 350 year old alien from another star system who has magical x-ray vision would you consider my answers, the exact same answers Anita got as you recall, more significant? Does your supposed skill at determining probabilities and levels of significance end at blond haired young ladies? Aren't numbers supposed to be the way to objectively analyze the outcome of a situation like the IIG test? Don't my exact same answers merit the same kind of incredulous carrying-on as you're doing with Anita's answers? Or maybe the time has come to admit that you're being wholly subjective and somewhat desperately trying to make something out of nothing, and then you can leave it alone.