The VFF Test is On!

VisionFromFeeling said:
I think you are confused about what the claim is. Many paranormal claims that are made by people involve the claim of some special "talent" that they choose to do at will. Like choosing to do a psychic reading, to use a dowsing rod, etc. But my claim is an experience that occurs on its own, every day. Regardless of whether I fail or pass the Preliminary or a test, I will continue to experience the perceptions in exactly the same way as before. I think that is one source of your confusion. It is not like I am "choosing" to "continue practicing the claim".
Click to expand...


Does anyone else see a problem with this approach to the testing? (Hint: It was explained by volatile, and it relates to what JoeTheJuggler has been saying.) The claimant here describes a paranormal claim as one being made by someone who believes they can actively practice, in this instance, magical x-ray vision by intent. If this test fails it will only show the claimant that the magical x-ray vision, which she assumes to exist as a real phenomenon, isn't something she can actively practiced by intent, but is just something that happens by accident on occasion.
 
GeeMack said:
It doesn't seem likely that your ignoring these questions the few times I've asked and the several times desertgal asked is a simple oversight, but just in case it was an honest mistake, I'll ask again... Yes or no, do you have the professional expertise to make that assessment? Yes or no, have you had an assessment made by a professional who does have the expertise to determine that?
Click to expand...
GeeMack, have you had a professional assessment to know that everything you think you remember doing earlier this week did in fact happen? No I have not had that assessment. Have you?
 
The problem is that I did detect the missing left kidney in that past experience, and even if I fail the Preliminary I will have detected it then. But failing the Preliminary will mean that I do not have a paranormal ability to detect internal organs. In that case there must be another explanation - but not false memory - to why I correctly detected the missing kidney then.

As for the attempted migraine healing, why are you arguing when I want to test that claim? And of course I am going to find out whether California laws permit me to do this. How else can I falsify that claim if not by attempting the treatment with a Skeptic who has migraines? Tell me how.
 
And yet another one for VfF to ignore...

VisionFromFeeling said:
GeeMack, have you had a professional assessment to know that everything you think you remember doing earlier this week did in fact happen?
Click to expand...

GeeMack isn't claiming that the anecdote of his 'perceiving' a missing kidney, after the subject told him it was missing, can't possibly be a created memory. You are. Whether GeeMack has had such an assessment has no relevance.

No I have not had that assessment.
Click to expand...
Then it might be a created memory. You are dismissing it without undertaking the effort to conclusively eliminate the possibility. Without that, you cannot call this a rigorous or scientific investigation.

You refer to others as "poor skeptics", yet your mind remains closed to explanations that do not jibe with what you want to believe. That makes you a poor skeptic, as well. For that matter, it makes you a poor science student.

Have you?
Click to expand...
GeeMack isn't claiming that the anecdote of his 'perceiving' a missing kidney, after the subject told him it was missing, can't possibly be a created memory. You are. Whether GeeMack has had such an assessment has no relevance.

In that case there must be another explanation - but not false memory - to why I correctly detected the missing kidney then.
Click to expand...
Or it could be false memory. You refuse to properly eliminate that possibility, but your refusal doesn't make it any less possible.
 
Last edited:
Ignored post #4...

VisionFromFeeling said:
The problem is that I did detect the missing left kidney in that past experience, and even if I fail the Preliminary I will have detected it then. But failing the Preliminary will mean that I do not have a paranormal ability to detect internal organs. In that case there must be another explanation - but not false memory - to why I correctly detected the missing kidney then.

As for the attempted migraine healing, why are you arguing when I want to test that claim? And of course I am going to find out whether California laws permit me to do this. How else can I falsify that claim if not by attempting the treatment with a Skeptic who has migraines? Tell me how.
Click to expand...

How are you going to falsify the migraine claim in one weekend? In order to falsify it, there needs to be evidence that your 'treatment' didn't reduce or eliminate future migraines. You're not going to be able to produce that data instantly. (Not that you ever have actually produced conclusive data, but there might be a first time.)
 
Last edited:
Anita: the clarity, sincerely and vividness of a memory have no bearing on its veracity. You seem to be assuming that because you "really, really" believe in your version of events, that this means they're true.

Memory doesn't work like that. Even the most significant and emotionally-powerful memories can be false. Read the literature. Interestingly, it can often be the case that the more trenchant memories which are constructed. Memory is not like a video camera; every time we remember something, we are reconstructing it, embedding details even if they never happened in the first place. I urge you to read some of the extensive research in this area.

I do not doubt your sincerity. But I do doubt that your sincerity is indicative of the veracity of your superpowers.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
In that case there must be another explanation - but not false memory - to why I correctly detected the missing kidney then.
Click to expand...
If it is not, in fact, a false memory (something which is a strong possibility IMO), then an alternative explanation is easy to find - pure luck. Make enough such guesses and you're bound to get lucky occasionally. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

As for the attempted migraine healing, why are you arguing when I want to test that claim?
Click to expand...
Because your proposed test is worthless. A single piece of anecdotal evidence is not going to prove anything either way. The perception of pain is one of the hardest symptoms to measure objectively. Pharmaceutical companies don't spend immense amounts of money and time doing large scale double blinded clinical trials for fun, you know.
 
A good place to start: http://www.skepdic.com/memory.html Read the whole article.

Then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225720.100-mind-fiction-why-your-brain-tells-tall-tales.html

"Our tendency to confabulate - to believe a fictitious story or memory - is a serious concern when it comes to trusting an eyewitness. How easily do our made-up stories become false memories? Maria Zaragoza of Kent State University in Ohio showed people an event on video and then asked them leading questions. When they did not have an answer - because the information just wasn't on the tape - she encouraged them to make one up. People are very uncomfortable doing this, she says. They say they don't know, and are just making up an answer, but a week later, more than half of the subjects report their false statements as true events.

Another experiment reveals that children behave in the same way in a real eyewitness situation. When asked to report how a maintenance man they had seen in a waiting room had broken something that he had not in fact touched, they said he didn't break it, or that they didn't see. They were then asked to make something up. A week later, many of the children believed their lies and would now willingly confabulate about the false situation. As with the adults, the effect was strongest when the questioner gave positive feedback, telling the person that their made-up answer was correct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_bias

http://cogprints.org/597/0/199802007.html


"Research studies are beginning to give us an understanding of how false memories of complete, emotional and self-participatory experiences are created in adults. First, there are social demands on individuals to remember; for instance, researchers exert some pressure on participants in a study to come up with memories. Second, memory construction by imagining events can be explicitly encouraged when people are having trouble remembering. And, finally, individuals can be encouraged not to think about whether their constructions are real or not. Creation of false memories are most likely to occur when these external factors are present, whether this occurs in an experimental setting, in a therapeutic setting, or in everyday activities.

False memories are constructed by combining actual memories with the content of suggestions received from others. During the process, individuals may forget the source of the information. This is a classic example of source confusion, in which the content and the source become dissociated."


These all link to peer-reviewed studies that will be available at your university. Read them. Please.
 
Last edited:
VisionFromFeeling said:
GeeMack, have you had a professional assessment to know that everything you think you remember doing earlier this week did in fact happen? No I have not had that assessment. Have you?
Click to expand...


I have had a professional assessment to determine whether a false memory or mental illness might be responsible for every single claim I've made about really truly having magical x-ray vision, not just last week, but ever in my life. As any remotely sane (and honest) person would. (Maybe anyone would like to guess how many times I've claimed to really truly experience having magical powers.)

So you acknowledge that you don't have the expertise, nor have you had an assessment by anyone with the proper expertise, therefore you can't claim with certainty (at least not honestly) that your supposed experience of having magical x-ray vision isn't all in your mind.

And since that possibility is one of the very common, mundane explanations as to why you believe (or claim to believe if you don't honestly believe) you've experienced magical x-ray powers, do you intend to have someone with the necessary professional expertise make that assessment after you participate in this IIG event? Yes or no?

Don't you think, since you claim to be a scientist science student, that it might be a good idea to work to eliminate all the mundane, common explanations before, or at least while, seeking to determine whether some supernatural powers are involved? Real scientists and most science students who honestly get good grades probably would.
 
VisionFromFeeling said:
...As for the attempted migraine healing, why are you arguing when I want to test that claim? And of course I am going to find out whether California laws permit me to do this. How else can I falsify that claim if not by attempting the treatment with a Skeptic who has migraines? Tell me how.
Click to expand...

First and most importantly, all legal imlications should have been thoroughly investigated even before making the offer. I write this in all seriousness.
Secondly, in my opinion, any att. treatments should be done under the supervision of a licensed physician. Plan on long-term study, over years.
Thirdly, centre on the IIG informal demonstration 21 November. Leave the att. treatments for another occasion; remember the lesson of the Ogilvie third 'test'. Then check out the man's home page and fanclub to see why
the alarm bells ring when a similar pattern seems to be forming.

All the best on the 21st!
 
A directly relevant study, and a scientific, evidential blow to your credibility, Anita:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119542294/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

"When individuals learn the outcome of an event or the correct answer to a question, they overestimate its prior predictability: that is, they tend to believe they "knew it all along." Cognitive and motivational interpretations of hindsight bias are briefly reviewed and a study designed to test the motivational interpretation is reported. Specifically, it was hypothesized that individual differences in the strengths of two motives, a need for predictability and a self-presentation motive, should be positively related to individual differences in the magnitude of hindsight bias. Sixty-eight subjects completed a Dogmatism Scale and an Intolerance for Ambiguity Scale (the predictability motive) and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (the self-presentation motive) before participating in a standard hindsight-bias paradigm. Measures of both motives, as well as a self-reported ego-involvement measure, were positively associated with the amount of hindsight bias exhibited. Implications of this result for interpretations of hindsight and other conceptually related phenomena are discussed."

I wonder where you sit on the Dogmatism Scale, the Intolerance for Ambiguity Scale (the predictability motive) and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale? I wonder who we might rate your ego-involvement in this matter?
 
desertgal said:
How are you going to falsify the migraine claim in one weekend? In order to falsify it, there needs to be evidence that your 'treatment' didn't reduce or eliminate future migraines. You're not going to be able to produce that data instantly. (Not that you ever have actually produced conclusive data, but there might be a first time.)
Click to expand...

Considering I was her volunteer, I'd discuss this if and only if CA laws let her.

And since they apparently don't, I move to say, "**** it," and table this. The IIG test is the important thing here. She needs to concentrate on kidneys and not migraines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom