The VFF Test is On!

[JoeTheJuggler]

+5 appropriate.

I've said this before in a different VFF thread, but I really think the focus should be on getting claimants to a test, as opposed to trying to convince them they can't do what they claim they can. It's _after_ the test, when the rationalizations start, that it's time to pile on. It's not after the test ... yet.

I don't quite agree with this.

If we hammer out before the test a protocol everyone agrees is conclusive, then there is no room for either side to explain away the results.

As I keep saying, an inconclusive test is not better than not testing at all.

Unlike the way the MDC works, in this situation VFF and the IIG are willing to do a "preliminary" test without an agreement for what a final test might be. So the IIG's $50K is really not at risk with this demonstration. Both SezMe and VFF have said that the protocol is almost certainly not up to the standards the JREF would require for the MDC.

I predict that the results of this test will be meaningless. There is NOT $50K riding on the outcome. Nor will the results tell us (or VFF) anything conclusive about her claim of paranormal powers.

 

[volatile]

I predict that the results of this test will be meaningless. There is NOT $50K riding on the outcome. Nor will the results tell us (or VFF) anything conclusive about her claim of paranormal powers.

Indeed. It seems to be designed to stoke egos, and not much more. Which is as shame, because I, for one, really would like to see a rigorous test of VFF's claimed abilities...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Can I ask a straightforward question? Do you consider this a demonstration of paranormal power vs synaesthesia, as a binary, or are you open to the third possibility that neither is the case, and it's all been in your mind?

I am open for additional alternative explanations besides paranormal perception and synesthesia, however it is not possible that the accuracy in the past would have been all in my mind. And I am certain about that. That's why this is a paranormal investigation.

Exactly. I don't see how synesthesia could account for detection of missing organs, it is merely misrouted signals (I've experienced it myself, mushrooms, decades ago) . Regardless, I'm rooting for VFF, she is much more rational then most paranormal claimants

And that's why it's a paranormal investigation. And thanks.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I don't quite agree with this.

If we hammer out before the test a protocol everyone agrees is conclusive, then there is no room for either side to explain away the results.

As I keep saying, an inconclusive test is not better than not testing at all.

Unlike the way the MDC works, in this situation VFF and the IIG are willing to do a "preliminary" test without an agreement for what a final test might be. So the IIG's $50K is really not at risk with this demonstration. Both SezMe and VFF have said that the protocol is almost certainly not up to the standards the JREF would require for the MDC.

I predict that the results of this test will be meaningless. There is NOT $50K riding on the outcome. Nor will the results tell us (or VFF) anything conclusive about her claim of paranormal powers.

You are misunderstanding what the IIG Preliminary demonstration is all about! Especially since the design of the Preliminary is less strict than the design of a real formal test would be, the Preliminary gives my claim the very best chance to show what it could do, so you see if I fail the Preliminary there is no other procedure that could be better and so the claim would definitely be falsified and end there. The Preliminary is fully capable of falsifying the claim!

I am so very pleased with the design of the Preliminary that I could not ask for any changes made to the protocol or for a chance to try again, because it can't be improved on, it is already perfect from my point of view. And that is very important! It means that the claim can end right there! On the other hand, if I were having a very strict formal test first, and I failed it, it might leave me wondering if I might have passed had it been designed in some other way. But not with this Preliminary!

The Preliminary is, however, not able to verify the claim, but if I pass the Preliminary then there will be a formal test.

And why are you disappointed that the $50,000 prize is not involved in the Preliminary? Does it make this less exciting for you? This is not about money. What I am after is a reliable conclusion in my paranormal claim.

If I fail this Preliminary, the claim will be conclusively falsified and over with!

And thank you those of you who are supporting me. I have endured a lot of negativity ever since I first came here. And to think that all this time I have been honest. I really did detect the missing left kidney that time. I do not ask that any of you believe me, because I have no evidence, but all I can do is tell the truth. Only three weeks left and then we will find out. And then it's over.

 

[volatile]

I am open for additional alternative explanations besides paranormal perception and synesthesia, however it is not possible that the accuracy in the past would have been all in my mind. And I am certain about that. That's why this is a paranormal investigation.

And this is why we all get so cross. If you accurately perceived someone's missing kidney, there *is* no explanation that is not paranormal. You need to understand that and accept it, and urgently. Unless you accept the possibility what you perceived or rationalised as accuracy wasn't accurate at all, this farce will continue ad infinitum.

If this demo goes badly, will you consider the possibility that your past 'accuracy' was not, in fact, accurate? In other words, would you mind explaining how this particular test relates to your broader claims?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are misunderstanding what the IIG Preliminary demonstration is all about! Especially since the design of the Preliminary is less strict than the design of a real formal test would be, the Preliminary gives my claim the very best chance to show what it could do, so you see if I fail the Preliminary there is no other procedure that could be better and so the claim would definitely be falsified and end there. The Preliminary is fully capable of falsifying the claim!

I don't think you understand what a conclusive test means.

If it's an inconclusive test, it is not worth doing.

Your claim doesn't need a "very best chance to show what it can do"--it needs to be tested in such a way that the result is conclusive.

If the protocol is flawed, then it cannot actually falsify your claim. That's exactly the point I'm making. You can't make a test like this such that the results are only meaningful if you fail.

That's why, I suspect, the IIG is not willing to risk their $50K on this test protocol.

And why are you disappointed that the $50,000 prize is not involved in the Preliminary? Does it make this less exciting for you? This is not about money. What I am after is a reliable conclusion in my paranormal claim.

I'm disappointed that you and IIG have not agreed to a protocol for the $50K and yet you are going to go ahead with a preliminary test knowing that you still have no agreed-upon protocol for a $50K test.

With JREF's MDC, you would not take a preliminary test without first getting a protocol agreed upon (ordinarily, the protocol for the final is the same as for the preliminary--the claimant just has to do it again). The fact that the IIG doesn't agree that this protocol can't be improved upon, tells me that they don't think it's a conclusive test. If it's known to be inconclusive at the outset, it's pointless.

 

[GeeMack]

I am open for additional alternative explanations besides paranormal perception and synesthesia, however it is not possible that the accuracy in the past would have been all in my mind. And I am certain about that. That's why this is a paranormal investigation.

[bolding mine] Do you have the professional expertise to make that assessment, or has some professional with the expertise made that assessment?

 

[volatile]

To expand on that last point: It looks like you're setting yourself up for an 'out'. Something like "My powers don't work under test conditions", or "my powers don't work in November", or "my powers don't work at this longitude".

Not just simply "my powers don't work".

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

And this is why we all get so cross. If you accurately perceived someone's missing kidney, there *is* no explanation that is not paranormal. You need to understand that and accept it, and urgently. Unless you accept the possibility what you perceived or rationalised as accuracy wasn't accurate at all, this farce will continue ad infinitum.

If this demo goes badly, will you consider the possibility that your past 'accuracy' was not, in fact, accurate? In other words, would you mind explaining how this particular test relates to your broader claims?

I did detect the missing left kidney that time. It was absolutely not a false memory that I would have constructed after the fact. And if you think about it, why else would I be betting my entire claim on that single isolated experience, if it weren't just that compelling? You know from the past exactly how careful I am with this claim. This experience was so true and so compelling that if I fail this Preliminary then I have no doubt in my mind that the claim is falsified.

As for my other types of experiences, this medical perceptions claim is the only claim that I am seriously interested in investigating. I do intend to team up with a few people and visit supposedly haunted sites and see if I can verify or debunk my experience of ghosts, and if I do find a normal explanation to it, I will be happy to be one of the few or first who actually experiences ghosts, to admit that it isn't reality based at all. I haven't chosen my experiences, and I am a science student and skeptic so rather than assume that my unusual experiences are reality based, I have chosen to investigate them.

I will most likely be putting the migraine healing claim to the test on the same weekend that I have the IIG Preliminary, depending on if California laws permit me to do that. I might be falsifying two claims in one weekend, isn't that nice?

As for my experience of colors and vibrations, I will continue to experience those whether I investigate or falsify them or not. I will continue to draw inspiration from these for scientific hypotheses in my work. But you will never see me entering into the woo economy. I think I will rather join forces with you all and become an investigating Skeptic. Having personal experience with these things, and having rationally falsified those claims, will probably make me a very good Skeptic indeed.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I don't think you understand what a conclusive test means. If it's an inconclusive test, it is not worth doing.

Think of it as a demonstration, which is what it is called, and not as a test.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

[bolding mine] Do you have the professional expertise to make that assessment, or has some professional with the expertise made that assessment?

Similarly, you can't be sure either that any of what you remember doing earlier today did in fact happen. First of all, if I were prone to having false memories, it would be very likely that friends and family would have pointed out inconsistencies to me in my life before, but that has never happened. I have not once experienced having my memories of events challenged by persons who were there with me and who witnessed events with me. My recollection of things has never been shown to be incorrect in the past, or challenged by people who experienced it with me. That in itself has some significance, although of course that does not provide conclusive credibility to my claim of having detected the kidney being missing.

I know how I sat there and was debating to myself whether to write down "missing left kidney" on the questionnaire. I spent several minutes looking into his back and confirming time and time again for myself that his left kidney was not there. I know how I held the pen against the paper, ready to write, and how my logic was telling me that surely I must be wrong because he doesn't seem to be the kind of person who has had kidney problems and had a kidney removed (my knowledge of the subject was not very broad at that time), and my logic was telling me that I would never hear the end of it and that I had been correct in many compelling cases in the past and had to make sure that I could proceed with the investigation for the sake of those past accurate perceptions. My mind was entirely certain that the perception was wrong, but the perception was entirely certain that the left kidney was not there.

Anyhow. Based on anything I know about myself, I did have that perception during the reading. And that is why I am betting my entire claim on that single experience. All I am asking is that you allow me to make this paranormal claim, because, that is what this is.

 

[Marcus]

This test is easy enough that VFF feels that if she can't even pass this, she will agree that the claim is falsified. Whereas a test difficult enough for the MDC, even if failed, would still leave room for a claim that the powers existed, just not of sufficient strength to pass such a stringent test. As such, this test is valuable, in that it will do what the MDC can not do, convince her that she doesn't have the claimed power. That's my take anyway.

 

[volatile]

I did detect the missing left kidney that time.

Right... so the results of this IIG test will have no bearing on how you perceive that particular incident? If that's the case, why are you even bothering with the test? If a negative result will not dissuade you of your certainty, and if you are not prepared in advance of the test of the implications it has for the veracity of your perceptions, you might as well not bother.

You need to understand what testing means.

It was absolutely not a false memory that I would have constructed after the fact.

How do you know? Isn't this test designed to test this very question. How can you use the word "absolutely"?

You're starting in the wrong place. You seem to have convinced IIG to test how your powers work without testing whether or not they really exist in the first place. You have given yourself an infinite number of outs, because as you say yourself, you will "keep having perceptions".

 

[Akhenaten]

Think of it as a demonstration, which is what it is called, and not as a test.

O rly?

Yes, it's true. The test is finally scheduled and only less than a month away. I have purchased non-refundable flight tickets. I will even be arriving early on the day before, and leaving in the afternoon on the day after the test so that I can have a full day for the test in case there are delays - and so that I can not be expected to blame anything on fatigue or on being rushed.

I have also sent a whopping $750 to the IIG to cover some of the costs of arranging the test. Don't worry, other people my age spend that kind of money on other things that they enjoy doing. I have been saving for a long time and this is something that is meaningful to me.

I have e-mailed the IIG asking them to confirm that I may post the test protocol. As soon as they confirm, I will post the protocol here in full. It is the best protocol ever, it is just that good.

I do hope you can attend the test, SezMe! Are you a member of the IIG, scientist from UCLA, or representative of the media? Otherwise they won't let you attend.

GeeMack, I don't think the IIG or the press would laugh at me when I fail the test, but if someone finds it entertaining then so be it. I will still be glad that I chose to go through with this, and I will still feel that it was the right choice to present a public and open example of a paranormal claim and its investigation. To have investigated an experience I can't explain, to have shared that with other people, to have set an example to other "psychic claimants", to show that it is possible and even very easy to submit a claim for a paranormal test and to go through with the test, and to embrace the conclusion of that test. And regardless of how other people will feel, I will be proud, not embarrassed.

I submitted my claim to the IIG more than two years ago, in July 2007. The claim, then, was based on limited experience with various perceptions and with checking for their accuracy. I included a large list of various health information that I had experienced detecting in the past and had confirmed as accurate. The IIG however wanted the test to focus on one or a few types of health information only. Ironically, they did suggest that we test the claim on missing kidneys, and back then I had not had that particular experience and had to say no. My claim is strictly based on what I claim to have experienced, and nothing more.

Experiencing something in everyday life can be very different from attempting the same in a test environment. I was not sure of which health information to choose for a test, and also I was not sure of how my claim might perform in a test. What test conditions would it perform under? Could I use a screen? Would I have to see the person from the front, and for how long? The protocol negotiations came to a halt.

Both IIG and the local Skeptics group suggested to me that I study my claim to learn more about it, and so I did. During the study, I had the specific (claimed) experience of detecting a missing kidney, and also learned plenty of other things about how my claim can and can not perform under various test conditions.

I was pleased to find that not only do the perceptions work if I see the person from behind, but that I would actually prefer that. I learned that I only need a few seconds to form and conclude on the perceptions. That the perceptions are not based on my thoughts or logic and are an entirely different process. That I do not use any interaction with the person, such as speaking or touching. But I also learned that I do need to see the person with my eyesight in order for the perceptions to form.

Anyhow, that is why it took the time it did before I was then able to submit a new and much more specific claim to the IIG. I then returned to the JREF Forums and discussed the test protocol with you all and learned many valuable suggestions that I included in my new test protocol draft that I submitted to the IIG based on this more specific claim.

And the test protocol that will be used is actually almost exactly as what I submitted as my initial draft.

The protocol negotiations went by very quickly and smoothly. I do not think the IIG and me experienced any of the complications that are common for many other paranormal claimants who try to arrive at a test. To submit your claim to a test and to actually go through with the test is very easy, and I do hope that other claimants become inspired to do the same, or to withdraw their claims.

You can read more about my claim and its investigation at www.visionfromfeeling.com

Once I submitted the new suggested protocol draft for the more specific claim it did not take long for it to become a final test protocol. But the process overall took more than two years, but that is because I was working on designing a more specific claim and studying how the claim does with various test conditions.

I thought I already answered earlier. I have e-mailed the IIG asking them to confirm whether I am allowed to post our test protocol or reveal details from it.

I would look forward to meeting you too! I hope to see you at the test, VIP!

There are reasons why I am unclear as to whether I may publish the test protocol. There is the possibility that the IIG is choosing not to reveal certain aspects of the test, so it is better that I confirm with them first. If I am incorrect, then I will tell you what I thought the reasons were.

PS. I will be up all night. I have homework. And coffee.

etcetera

Think of it as a demonstration, which is what it is called, and not as a test.

Hmm?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

To expand on that last point: It looks like you're setting yourself up for an 'out'. Something like "My powers don't work under test conditions", or "my powers don't work in November", or "my powers don't work at this longitude".

Not just simply "my powers don't work".

Hey! I have been saying that if I fail the Preliminary then my claim is falsified! Why on earth are you still questioning that?! Don't you see how I time and time again say that the protocol for the Preliminary is perfectly designed! How very happy I am with it and how I could not imagine any improvements to it? Why can't you accept that I am very happy with the protocol and that I am fully convinced that no other procedure and no other test conditions could ever give my claim a better chance of proving itself?

I was involved in the design of the protocol, and every single one of my requirements have been met.

And when I sit there during the demonstration, the IIG will ask me before we begin whether I am comfortable with the conditions and whether my claim is working properly. And I am able to check whether my perceptions are forming or not, simply by looking at a person and noting for myself whether I am seeing internal organs or not. If the perceptions occur, then the claim is taking place and I will proceed, and if my perceptions are inaccurate, the claim is falsified.

Why so adamant?

 

[volatile]

This test is easy enough that VFF feels that if she can't even pass this, she will agree that the claim is falsified. Whereas a test difficult enough for the MDC, even if failed, would still leave room for a claim that the powers existed, just not of sufficient strength to pass such a stringent test. As such, this test is valuable, in that it will do what the MDC can not do, convince her that she doesn't have the claimed power. That's my take anyway.

Absolutely not. She is convinced she has powers, and wants to test how they work, not whether they actually exist. Nothing she's said has suggested otherwise; see her recent posts.

It's not even clear what she means by "falsify". She certainly doesn't use it as a synonym for "disproven".

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

This test is easy enough that VFF feels that if she can't even pass this, she will agree that the claim is falsified. Whereas a test difficult enough for the MDC, even if failed, would still leave room for a claim that the powers existed, just not of sufficient strength to pass such a stringent test. As such, this test is valuable, in that it will do what the MDC can not do, convince her that she doesn't have the claimed power. That's my take anyway.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Think of it as a demonstration, which is what it is called, and not as a test.

Except when you call it a test. (See the Akhenaten's post. . . oh yeah, and the thread title. Even the IIG says that this "preliminary demonstration" is part of their $50K paranormal challenge.)

This test is easy poorly designed enough that VFF feels that if she can't even pass this, she will agree that the claim is falsified.

I do not agree that a well designed test is conclusive only if the claimant fails.

If the purpose of this demonstration is only to convince an honest claimant that she really doesn't have the claimed ability, the claimant could (and should) have done this on her own already. She could do self tests at home (as I have described elsewhere) that would rule out all but intentional fraud.

I don't think she's done her homework, though. Instead, she is convinced she has the power based on anecdotes that may even have been confabulated after the fact.

 

[volatile]

Hey! I have been saying that if I fail the Preliminary then my claim is falsified!

...

If the perceptions occur, then the claim is taking place and I will proceed, and if my perceptions are inaccurate, the claim is falsified.

What do you mean by "falsified"?

Do you mean that it will demonstrate you d not, after all, have "vision from feeling"? Do you mean that it will demonstrate that you cannot perceive vibrational information? Do you mean that it will show that what you have so oddly been calling "synaesthesia" has actually been just a set of false perceptions, imaginations, fallacies, errors and confusions? Do you mean, as we would expect you to mean, that if you fail the IIG test it means that your recollection of the Dr. Carlson Kidney Incident is entirely groundless? That you cannot, in fact, see people's organs after all? If you fail this test, how will that reflect on your previous assertions? This is what I'm getting at: if the IIG test is a failure, how will you re-evaluate the kidney incident?

When you say "I will continue to have perceptions", what do you mean? Will you, or will you not, accept that if you fail this test, it will prove once and for all that your perceptions are a figment of your imagination? Because that's not how I've read this thread.

I'm happy to be corrected. And I'm not having a go at you; rather, I'm interested in how you see this test in the broader context of your magic powers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This test is easy poorly designed enough that VFF feels that if she can't even pass this, she will agree that the claim is falsified.

But she doesn't have to.

Again, I disagree with the idea that you can have a poor design and consider it to be conclusive only if the claimant fails.