Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

[Drs_Res]

Well, I have more important things to do.

 

[Daylightstar]

ETA: Oops, not there! Must have edited it out.

That's right, not there (in any of those three links which you now removed) at all.

Yes, you removed the text on that page I quoted.

 

[Daylightstar]

I did not expect the results I had. I did too good to falsify the claim, ie. I was right too often, giving a 3.8% odds of guessing to such results, being well below the traditional 5% mark of continued significance, also had I discarded answers I knew beforehand to be wrong I'd had a 100% accuracy.

...

Rubbish.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I have not produced any inaccurate health perceptions that I would have stated represents the claim.

Does anyone know a person who is missing a kidney or uterus and be willing to set up a quick test and end this whole thing for everyone?

Or how about a room full of skeptics* where I can do readings and see if I come up with something inaccurate?

*I can't give my readings to non-Skeptics in case it be wrong and people get harmed by receiving inaccurate health information.

 

[Daylightstar]

Oh, shame.

 

[Furcifer]

Unfortunately my background is in chemistry and physics research, where research hypotheses require tedious and iterative attention. Where all parameters affecting the outcome need to be carefully identified and investigated, one at a time. Where we deliberately set up experiments in which the hypothesis is expected to fail, just to confirm the cases in which it fails. Where we carefully consider the outcome and do our best to find any alternate experimental setup that will show another angle of the hypothesis.

"Recursion, in mathematics and computer science, is a method of defining functions in which the function being defined is applied within its own definition; specifically it is defining an infinite statement using finite components."


And the wheels on the bus...

 

[Robo Sapien]

But how come when I look at people I correctly see in my mind that a person is missing a left kidney, missing a uterus, has reproductive cysts, has had their skull crushed in the past, has taken Lactobacillus supplement, and many more, all cases in circumstances where there should have been no outward symptoms? THIS IS PUZZLING ME!

I WANT TO DO A READING AND TO BE INACCURATE.

I believe that you see patterns where none exist, it is your garden variety mysticism that has been augmented by the knowledge you are gaining in school.

My sincere advice to you is to put this investigation on the backburner, and work on beefing up your critical thinking skills, until then you won't be able to make sense of anything. The folks on this forum have pointed out every logical fallacy you have ever made, but you will not see them.

What's more, you are in school to pursue a career in science, but I'm afraid your career will be short lived if you do not overcome this obstacle of reason. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment; we will assume, hypothetically, that what you say about your vision is true. However, this course of action will get you shunned from the science community, and your life will be in ruins. Then you will be in no position to help anyone.

If there is any merit at all to your claim, then you will never find it so long as you continue all this baseless speculation and post hoc reasoning. Chill out, take a step back, and learn to approach this with some logic. Disproving your own claim will not make you a skeptic, only clear thinking will do that. You must become a skeptic first and THEN worry about your claim.

 

[jhunter1163]

"I feel really good about the test I am about to have, but most importantly of all, I know that it is the best type of test design for my claim of medical perceptions and I can never expect to be able to design a test that would be any easier for me to pass. Therefore the results of the paranormal test will conclude on the claim, and if I fail the test I will be proud to announce that the claim of medical perceptions through extrasensory perception is falsified. I can't wait to have the test. I am ready."

Maybe someone with stronger Google-fu than me could check the Google cache and recover the page that way.

And, if her perceptions don't work through cloth, how did she expect to see kidneys through the shirts the volunteers were wearing?

 

[desertgal]

Or how about a room full of skeptics* where I can do readings and see if I come up with something inaccurate?

*I can't give my readings to non-Skeptics in case it be wrong and people get harmed by receiving inaccurate health information.

Try contacting the Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers.

Oh, wait...

 

[Audible Click]

I have not produced any inaccurate health perceptions that I would have stated represents the claim.

Does anyone know a person who is missing a kidney or uterus and be willing to set up a quick test and end this whole thing for everyone?

Or how about a room full of skeptics* where I can do readings and see if I come up with something inaccurate?

*I can't give my readings to non-Skeptics in case it be wrong and people get harmed by receiving inaccurate health information.

Get "Your Spencer" to help you.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I believe that you see patterns where none exist, it is your garden variety mysticism that has been augmented by the knowledge you are gaining in school.

My sincere advice to you is to put this investigation on the backburner, and work on beefing up your critical thinking skills, until then you won't be able to make sense of anything. The folks on this forum have pointed out every logical fallacy you have ever made, but you will not see them.

What's more, you are in school to pursue a career in science, but I'm afraid your career will be short lived if you do not overcome this obstacle of reason. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment; we will assume, hypothetically, that what you say about your vision is true. However, this course of action will get you shunned from the science community, and your life will be in ruins. Then you will be in no position to help anyone.

If there is any merit at all to your claim, then you will never find it so long as you continue all this baseless speculation and post hoc reasoning. Chill out, take a step back, and learn to approach this with some logic. Disproving your own claim will not make you a skeptic, only clear thinking will do that. You must become a skeptic first and THEN worry about your claim.

NO. I have not had any inaccurate readings! And I am frequently describing information that comes with no known external symptoms or other identifiable known explanations. I will NOT falsify this claim until I make inaccurate perceptions.

And investigating an interesting topic does not make me less of a future scientist, simply because of the controversy of this topic.

The problem is, there IS no post hoc rationalisation!

I am asking if any of you Skeptics worldwide could set up either a test involving missing kidney and uterus, or simply provide with a room full of Skeptics to see if I present an inaccurate reading. Perhaps your local Skeptics group?

I keep coming back to Skeptics because as the claimant I am not reliable to conduct my own investigation. You call that attention seeking or narcissism, I call it having an interesting claim and investigating it skeptically.

 

[kerikiwi]

I will say it again. I have several cases of synesthesia. When I look at numbers I see colors. When I look at people I feel vibrational patterns that become images. In itself not interesting and not reason for stating a paranormal claim, but what is interesting is that the images depict accurate health information. Again, not necessarily interesting, just that there are cases where I find no rational explanation such as prior knowledge, external symptoms, or otherwise. That is why there is a paranormal claim.

I have not produced any inaccurate perceptions yet. Failing a trial when I already said in advance that the results do not represent the claim and are inaccurate, simply is not evidence against the claim. It is the equivalent of accidentally knocking over a chemistry beaker, or suddenly thinking "did I add too much of the ingredient?". Trials containing any insecurity are discarded. Simple as that. Unless the claim is to be able to do this every time, and in every situation.

If the claim is falsified, by inaccurate perceptions, it is not the case of a mental illness. Synesthesia is by definition not a mental illness, and all details surrounding my perceptions of health make it not a mental illness.

And I am not a charlatan. If I were I would be out there charging $2,000 for a psychic reading rather than investigating the claim and being open for falsification.

Repeating lies (or delusions, but as I said before I favour the lying hypothesis)
in no way turns them into truth.
Charlatans are not defined by how much money, if any, they make.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

And, if her perceptions don't work through cloth, how did she expect to see kidneys through the shirts the volunteers were wearing?

I don't know. I find it curious as well. But that is how it goes.

 

[kerikiwi]

I WANT TO DO A READING AND TO BE INACCURATE.

Another one? Don't be greedy.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Maybe someone with stronger Google-fu than me could check the Google cache and recover the page that way.

And, if her perceptions don't work through cloth, how did she expect to see kidneys through the shirts the volunteers were wearing?

Apparently, her magical ability is blocked by heavy cotton napkins, but lighter cotton shirts are transparent to it. Maybe she just needs the same test, but instead of a napkin, a tee shirt could be used instead to hide the hand under. In fact, if she can see a kidney through a tee shirt and skin, but not a hand and bones through the same tee shirt, then that would be an indicator that the problem is not with the screen, but with the claimant.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Try contacting the Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers. Oh, wait...

I've already done readings on them as volunteers and extracted what I could have learned from that. And none of them seem to know any additional persons who are missing a kidney or uterus. They have one of each persons in their group, but unless we figure out a clever way of blinding the volunteers, persons could not be used a second time once I know the identities of who is missing what.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Another one? Don't be greedy.

Provide me with an example of an inaccurate perception that I made where I stated confidence in the perception before the accuracy was established.

 

[godless dave]

I will say it again. I have several cases of synesthesia. When I look at numbers I see colors. When I look at people I feel vibrational patterns that become images. In itself not interesting and not reason for stating a paranormal claim, but what is interesting is that the images depict accurate health information.

The word I bolded is the claim that you have not been able to support.

 

[Farencue]

Gee I wonder if Spencer Marks is reading the trolling and baiting tactics going on here?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The word I bolded is the claim that you have not been able to support.

Don't be silly, all of my health perceptions, whether anecdotal or documented, have been either confirmed accurate or unable to confirm accuracy/inaccuracy of.