VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Uncayimmy]

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%).

Wow, Rodney. Just WOW.

Your stats are not based on the "formal" test. They are based on you cherry picking data in a way that is contrary to what the test was looking for and still failing to show anything unusual. I find it highly amusing. As for the other "tests" I listed, they were listed either because they were witnessed by third parties, announced in advance, and/or documented at the time they occurred. This puts them far above anecdotes.

While the results of "tests" not witnessed by third parties may be unverified, the fact is that VFF herself has reported the failures. Are we to assume that she's going to lie about things to make herself look foolish? If somebody says, "I attempted something science considers impossible and failed," then I see no reason to disbelieve them for the purposes of evaluating whether they are capable doing to the impossible or not.

As for the rest of her "claims" those are merely unverified, anecdotes after the "fact." In every case the so-called "apparent accuracy" was easily explained by the ordinary and mundane. What we don't know is how many anecdotes she's withholding where she failed to find anything. We know for a fact that she has tried to hide things before. It's the old count the hits and ignore the misses routine.

Just say, "I want to believe" and move on, Rodney.

 

[bookitty]

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:



(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.

That is an interesting case, I'll be looking into it more deeply. Thanks.

This blind spot is common to all claimants that I've read up on. Some small part of the brain where logic fails utterly. You can see it in conversations. Things are going along nicely, the explanations are clear and precise until someone points out this or that fallacy. Then the claimant starts dancing around, never quite answering specific questions, repeats things endlessly and usually gets huffy.

Of course you see similar tactics in every faith-based argument. But so many of the MDC (and other) contenders have this "faith" in something that seems as if it was made up on the spot.

 

[bookitty]

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!

I am reminded of Socrates' dialog with Menon in which he explains that he doesn't want to have a conversation like "one of those clever fellows, who just chop logic and argue to win" but rather like friends who enjoy talking together.

In any case, the results are always expected. A person has claimed a talent that defies all logic. When tested, logic wins.

Fun fact: Traynor statistically had a better chance of getting one right than zero. Does this mean he needs a re-test? Nope. Does it mean that he did anything unexpected? Nope. Is it at all significant? Not a bit. Is it interesting? Mildly.

 

[pchams]

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.

Bingo!
Apparently, Anita is "interesting" for just that reason.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I am reminded of Socrates' dialog with Menon in which he explains that he doesn't want to have a conversation like "one of those clever fellows, who just chop logic and argue to win" but rather like friends who enjoy talking together.

We're not friends.

In any case, the results are always expected. A person has claimed a talent that defies all logic. When tested, logic wins.

The claims don't defy logic. They defy contradictory evidence - big difference. Years ago there was no 'logical" reason that some rocks would attract iron while most did not. Over in the Science forum we see all manner of intelligent people struggling with how relativity and other complex theories seem to defy common sense. What it comes down to is evidence. Proper logic applied to incomplete evidence can sometimes lead to faulty theories. Just look at the anti-vax crowd.

Take VFF for example. The contradictory evidence is that billions of humans have looked at billions of other humans every day for tens of thousands of years and not one has been to see inside the body with the unaided eye. Whatever "logic" there is behind her explanation is irrelevant. It's the ignoring of evidence that's the problem.

Fun fact: Traynor statistically had a better chance of getting one right than zero. Does this mean he needs a re-test? Nope. Does it mean that he did anything unexpected? Nope. Is it at all significant? Not a bit. Is it interesting? Mildly.

What is interesting about it, even if only mildly? Look at the graph below. It shows 500 runs of 10 coin flips and their distribution. What *I* find interesting is how random events approach a normal distribution. You can run it yourself and watch how as the number of runs increases (it runs indefinitely) the distribution evens out.



So, again, what's mildly interesting about seeing somebody get results right in meat of the bell curve? I don't get it.

 

[Ashles]

Tell you what - I can predict coin tosses.

I'm going to do it right now ten times.

I predict H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H.

Actual coin tosses: T, H, H, H, T, T, T, H, T, T.

Look at that! In the first 4 I got 3 out of four correct in a row! What are the odds of that?
And I knew I was going to get those correct - I felt really confident.

Unfortunately I got fatigues after that.

I assume certain people here would find my results 'interesting' and 'nearly statistically significant' so I should be encouraged to continue testing myself.

Yes?

I am going to continue my trials as I learned a lot from my previous one.

I am now going to conduct a 'study' (I assure you it is honest even though I am doing it alone)

This time I predict:

H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H

The results:

T, H, T, H, T, H, H, T, H, T

This is interesting - I have my patio doors open and, as, I am weaing shorts I felt cold throughout this test. I didn't feel confident at the start.

But I am learning new things about my coin toss abilty all the time - this test was reall useful. I shall ensure I am warm next time.

By the way I am available and articulate and able to explain the mentality behind my beliefs (it is to do with magnetism and electromagnetic forces). If anyone wants to interview me... (obviously I reserve the right to edit out any portions of the interview I don't like).

 

[not daSkeptic]

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%) ...

If we assume for the moment this figure is correct, what's so impressive about beating 1-in-17.6 odds?

 

[Uncayimmy]

If we assume for the moment this figure is correct, what's so impressive about beating 1-in-17.6 odds?

What? Are you new here?

Rodney is clinging to the 1 in 20 odds they use in some clinical trials in order to capture a potentially effective medication even though it is totally inappropriate for looking at this claim.

 

[bookitty]

We're not friends.


The claims don't defy logic. They defy contradictory evidence - big difference. Years ago there was no 'logical" reason that some rocks would attract iron while most did not. Over in the Science forum we see all manner of intelligent people struggling with how relativity and other complex theories seem to defy common sense. What it comes down to is evidence. Proper logic applied to incomplete evidence can sometimes lead to faulty theories. Just look at the anti-vax crowd.

Take VFF for example. The contradictory evidence is that billions of humans have looked at billions of other humans every day for tens of thousands of years and not one has been to see inside the body with the unaided eye. Whatever "logic" there is behind her explanation is irrelevant. It's the ignoring of evidence that's the problem.


What is interesting about it, even if only mildly? Look at the graph below. It shows 500 runs of 10 coin flips and their distribution. What *I* find interesting is how random events approach a normal distribution. You can run it yourself and watch how as the number of runs increases (it runs indefinitely) the distribution evens out.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_281604bc615b9ca58c.jpg[/qimg]

So, again, what's mildly interesting about seeing somebody get results right in meat of the bell curve? I don't get it.

No, you wouldn't and there is no way to explain it to you. Or perhaps there is but the process is all so aggressive and boring.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No, you wouldn't and there is no way to explain it to you. Or perhaps there is but the process is all so aggressive and boring.

There's no need to personalize this. Correcting your misunderstanding is not being aggressive. Asking you to explain an assertion is not being aggressive. Responding to your it reminds of friends talking quote to point out that you told me in the past that we do not share "comradery" is not being aggressive - in fact, it was an effort to terminate an attempt to personalize the discussion.

Your assertion that there's no way to explain it is without merit. I and others are able to explain why we find some results interesting and others not. If you are unable to articulate your reasoning, that is not a reflection on my ability to understand it. I would say that your unsupported assertion is an example of the type of thinking that leads skeptics to offering these types of challenges in the first place.

 

[bookitty]

There's no need to personalize this. Correcting your misunderstanding is not being aggressive. Asking you to explain an assertion is not being aggressive. Responding to your it reminds of friends talking quote to point out that you told me in the past that we do not share "comradery" is not being aggressive - in fact, it was an effort to terminate an attempt to personalize the discussion.

Your assertion that there's no way to explain it is without merit. I and others are able to explain why we find some results interesting and others not. If you are unable to articulate your reasoning, that is not a reflection on my ability to understand it. I would say that your unsupported assertion is an example of the type of thinking that leads skeptics to offering these types of challenges in the first place.

How can you say whether something is definitely not mildly interesting. Trivia, by it's very definition is not important but it can be interesting. There is nothing to "correct." Yet, you have dedicated many paragraphs to it, offered graphs, and pontificated endlessly over something that is is completely and utterly subjective.

There is nothing about the fact that Traynor had a better chance of getting one right that is particularly significant. Just one of those amusing little details. It deserves nothing more than a passing mention. You have made it a cage match, as usual.

You even misunderstood the example from Socrates because you focused on a single word and missed the point completely. Discussions of these sorts should be entertaining or why bother? Since your mind is already made up, there is no chance of consideration, just some tidbit for you to gnaw until it is bloodless. I, subjectively, find it both boring and aggressive. Although it should be amusing to watch you argue that without being either.

 

[Uncayimmy]

How can you say whether something is definitely not mildly interesting. Trivia, by it's very definition is not important but it can be interesting. There is nothing to "correct." Yet, you have dedicated many paragraphs to it, offered graphs, and pontificated endlessly over something that is is completely and utterly subjective.

Who besides you has said anything about it being definitive? Reasonable people will disagree on subjective matters, but reasonable people also give explanations for their opinions. It is not possible disagree reasonably when there is no reasoning.

There is nothing about the fact that Traynor had a better chance of getting one right that is particularly significant. Just one of those amusing little details. It deserves nothing more than a passing mention. You have made it a cage match, as usual.

Again, please stop personalizing it. If you do not want your assertions questioned, then do not post them on a discussion board. If you say something is amusing or mildly interesting, expect people to ask you to explain why.

You even misunderstood the example from Socrates because you focused on a single word and missed the point completely.

I got the point. I chose to ignore your attempts at personalizing the discussion because regardless of my motives (whatever they may be), my questions and statements are wholly appropriate for this discussion board. Members are supposed to address the arguments, not the arguer.

Discussions of these sorts should be entertaining or why bother?

If you want entertainment, hit the Humor forum. I, for one, come here to educate and be educated. I'm interested in mental stimulation.

Since your mind is already made up, there is no chance of consideration, just some tidbit for you to gnaw until it is bloodless.

Please do not make assumptions about my state of mind, especially when your assertions ignore the evidence, which is that I have stated "I don't understand," explained the reasoning for my position, and asked for an explanation for your reasoning. How you arrive at that as my mind being made up is beyond me.

I, subjectively, find it both boring and aggressive. Although it should be amusing to watch you argue that without being either.

Again, please stop with the personalization. If you find it boring, then by all means do something else with your time. If you find being asked questions a form of aggression, then perhaps it is best if you not offer your opinions and continue to reassert them while ignoring those questions. The rules here require that I be civil and polite while also avoiding attacks on the arguer. If you feel I have violated those rules, then report my posts.

 

[not daSkeptic]

How can you say whether something is definitely not mildly interesting.

Interest is subjective, which is why I asked Jeff to define his threshold. Turning an opinion into a number allows said opinion to be explored objectively.

 

[Rodney]

If we assume for the moment this figure is correct, what's so impressive about beating 1-in-17.6 odds?

It's sort of like a 1-in-17.6 odds horse winning a race. Nothing spectacular, but not all that common, either. Compare Anita's performance to Regen Traynor's: The odds of Anita getting at least one person right were about 1-in-1.4, whereas the odds of Regen getting at least one card right were about 1.7 to 1 in his favor. But she got two persons right, he got no cards right. Proof of anything? No, but from some of the comments from Randi Forum members, one would think that Anita had failed as dismally as Regen did.

 

[Uncayimmy]

It's sort of like a 1-in-17.6 odds horse winning a race.

Actually, it is nothing like that at all. Odds makers are not making predictions about which horse will win. Odds makers are making odds to keep the betting evenly distributed. A 17 to 1 horse doesn't get those odds because he wins on average 1 out 17 times against a similar field. A 17 to 1 horse simply offers a high enough payout to influence betting away from what bettors believe will be the horses most likely to win.

Nothing spectacular, but not all that common, either. Compare Anita's performance to Regen Traynor's: The odds of Anita getting at least one person right were about 1-in-1.4, whereas the odds of Regen getting at least one card right were about 1.7 to 1 in his favor. But she got two persons right, he got no cards right. Proof of anything? No, but from some of the comments from Randi Forum members, one would think that Anita had failed as dismally as Regen did.

Sorry, Rodney, but I've covered this before. Several times. Your constant repetition does not make you correct. First, your claims about the numbers are without merit. Second, if we tested 1,000 people like that by just them rolling a 12 sided die, we'd expect 999 of them to get two of fewer correct. Whether they fall into the 770, 220, or 19 member groups is irrelevant because they are part of the large group that simply failed.

 

[kittynh]

I still say that is someone really does have a paranormal power, the million dollar test will mean nothing. If you CAN see through people, you don't need a test. People will throw money at you, and honestly, if someone COULD see through people I'd think it really cool and say "yeah give them the million dollars and now let's study the heck out of it".

It's weird how people think skeptics DON'T want people to pass a test. We're rather realistic about the chances, after all bucking all the known laws of the Universe and breaking every law of nature is a long shot. But when SETI gets in touch with the aliens I'll be the first going "HURRAY!", or if a Bigfoot body shows up I'll be so happy to hear about the DNA results. Loch Ness monster, yes I admit I LOOKED when I was in Scotland. I guess what you can say about most skeptics I know, including myself, is that we would LOVE for something like Nessie or Xray vision to be TRUE. But the key word here is TRUE.

If someone bucks the statistics, that doesn't MEAN you have some power. You have a paranormal power is you HAVE IT. It's kinda silly, we aren't dealing with N Rays here. Some people see it, some don't...no we gotta have everyone see it!!

 

[Akhenaten]

It's sort of like a 1-in-17.6 odds horse winning a race. Nothing spectacular, but not all that common, either. Compare Anita's performance to Regen Traynor's: The odds of Anita getting at least one person right were about 1-in-1.4, whereas the odds of Regen getting at least one card right were about 1.7 to 1 in his favor. But she got two persons right, he got no cards right. Proof of anything? No, but from some of the comments from Randi Forum members, one would think that Anita had failed as dismally as Regen did.

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?

Any chance of you answering this, Rodney?

Are you claiming that your statistical analysis leads you to believe that it's possible that Vision from Feeling has X-ray vision or not?

Please try 'yes' or 'no' for a response, instead of the meaningless number-crunching waffle.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Nothing spectacular, but not all that common, either.

What constitutes common?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Interest is subjective, which is why I asked Jeff to define his threshold. Turning an opinion into a number allows said opinion to be explored objectively.

I think it's also fair to see that curiosity is an element "interesting" and that interesting things hold our attention. Humans, it seems to me, "lose interest" with with the familiar and commonplace and are not curious about the expected and ordinary. This is why I have been pushing for answers.

I can see someone looking at test results the first time finding them interesting much as somebody who has lived in Minnesota all his life might find palm trees interesting on that first visit to Florida. If you tell them you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a palm tree, they might say, "Well, it's interesting to me because I've never seen them before." Quickly, though, palm trees will not be interesting at all.

 

[lionking]

Again, please stop with the personalization.

I tried to put an irony meter in here, but it blew up well before I could post it.