The VFF Test is On!

[skeen]

Anita, when you fail, will you consider seeing a psychiatrist?

 

[GeeMack]

VFF has claimed I'm a 'bad skeptic', 'prejudiced' and, after having asking me how I think she should investigate her migraine condition 'claims' has pointedly ignored my suggestions.

My concerns with VFF's credibility as a claimant for the the IIG West test or any other still stand unanswered.

All of which have nothing to do with the upcoming test.

ETA: Look, I'm not in the business of defending Anita here. Rather, I'm trying to keep the focus on the test and its interpretation. Other "stuff" is ... well "other".

A staff member at JREF said, after reviewing this thread on October 29, "Once in part of a response that was on topic, she brought up Uncajimmy, but that's the only thing I can see that was remotely off topic." So really, any issues that were brought up before that time, including her solicitation to commit a crime by offering to attempt migraine treatments in California, speculation about the cause of her claimed memory of having magical x-ray vision, her proven lies that demonstrate her lack of credibility, her demonstrated lack of understanding of quality protocol design and the scientific method, apparently all speak at least indirectly to the upcoming IIG Show, and therefore aren't "remotely off topic".

In particular I believe that volatile's research regarding false memories and his requests that Anita address that issue are pertinent here and shouldn't be ignored. A person is claiming to have magical x-ray vision, and just like with someone who claims to see a UFO or a ghost, a skeptical inquiry will necessarily include consideration for the cause of the claim, whether it be Venus misinterpreted as an alien craft or something in the claimant's mind that makes them believe their claim is true. It's reasonable to ask how this particular claimant would address all the possibilities for the cause of her claim, especially the most likely causes.

 

[laca]

Anita, when you fail, will you consider seeing a psychiatrist?

Of course she won't. She stated on multiple occasions that she "really did detect that missing kidney" and that nothing could convince her she didn't. Therefore the whole IIG test (or any other test for that matter) is rather moot.

 

[pakeha]

While you have a good point, laca, I can't entirely agree with you.
The IIG demonstration will bring in a great deal of publicity and there will always be fans of someone perceived to have 'powers', even when debunked. Searching through the later careers of 'psychics' even when thoroughly shown up by Randi himself will give you an idea of what I mean.
We've been assured VFF's att. treatments are in no way related to the IIG, which is positive, as I think any connection between VFF's att. treatments and the IIG could compromise the demonstration's credibility.

added: The 21st is around the corner now. Will there be streaming?

 

[laca]

While you have a good point, laca, I can't entirely agree with you.
The IIG demonstration will bring in a great deal of publicity and there will always be fans of someone perceived to have 'powers', even when debunked. Searching through the later careers of 'psychics' even when thoroughly shown up by Randi himself will give you an idea of what I mean.

Irrelevant. The test is moot from Anita's perspective, because even if she fails miserably, she won't change her mind. Ergo, moot.

We've been assured VFF's att. treatments are in no way related to the IIG, which is positive, as I think any connection between VFF's att. treatments and the IIG could compromise the demonstration's credibility.

We? Nobody except you thought that the migraine treatments were associated in any way with the IIG test. There was nothing that would have suggested as such, except the fact that it got mentioned in the same thread. Please stop making it an issue.

 

[pakeha]

Irrelevant. The test is moot from Anita's perspective, because even if she fails miserably, she won't change her mind. Ergo, moot.

By no means moot, laca. There is the question of the publicity, something VFF has shown to like in this thread and others, not to mention the stopVFF site.
However, it is, I think, a safe bet VFF will not change her mind about her 'powers' and I agree with you there.

We? Nobody except you thought that the migraine treatments were associated in any way with the IIG test. There was nothing that would have suggested as such, except the fact that it got mentioned in the same thread. Please stop making it an issue.

Sorry to have explained myself so badly. I assumed posters understood about 'piggybacking'. In any case VFF herself said she was going to take advantage of the journey to do att. treatments on 'skeptics'. I recall I wasn't the only one to express a concern about this.
Should I be flattered you picked up on my posts and none of the others?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>


We? Nobody except you thought that the migraine treatments were associated in any way with the IIG test. There was nothing that would have suggested as such, except the fact that it got mentioned in the same thread. Please stop making it an issue.

<snippy>

Sorry to have explained myself so badly. I assumed posters understood about 'piggybacking'. In any case VFF herself said she was going to take advantage of the journey to do att. treatments on 'skeptics'. I recall I wasn't the only one to express a concern about this.
Should I be flattered you picked up on my posts and none of the others?

my bolding


Pakeha is correct. 'We' do indeed see a connection between the IIG test and att. migraine treatments.

 

[laca]

Sorry to have explained myself so badly. I assumed posters understood about 'piggybacking'. In any case VFF herself said she was going to take advantage of the journey to do att. treatments on 'skeptics'.

Yes, she intended to shoot two birds with one shot. However, the fact that she intended to do the att. migraine treatment during the same journey does not make it a part of the IIG test.

I recall I wasn't the only one to express a concern about this.
Should I be flattered you picked up on my posts and none of the others?

Several people expressed concern about the migraine treatment. However, none I recall assumed it was in any way related to the IIG test. That was most probably the reason I picked up on your post and not the others'. Another reason could have been pure chance. You shouldn't be flattered in any of those cases

 

[laca]

Pakeha is correct. 'We' do indeed see a connection between the IIG test and att. migraine treatments.

What would be that connection, aside from the fact that both are Anita's claims and that they were supposed to be "tested" during the same visit? How could the att. migraine treatment interfere with the other test's credibility?

 

[pakeha]

It's very clear to me, laca, that an activity of dubious legality would affect the credibility of the IIG demonstration.
Especially if it were performed on a member of the IIG or their circle.

 

[Akhenaten]

What would be that connection, aside from the fact that both are Anita's claims and that they were supposed to be "tested" during the same visit?

The connection is that both are Anita's claims and that they were supposed to be "tested" during the same visit.

I do not put this aside as you do, but that's cool. Different POV perhaps.

How could the att. migraine treatment interfere with the other test's credibility?

Well it certainly makes me think about the testee's credibility. Why would I ignore it?

 

[pakeha]

I've just seen this post, laca.

Yes, she intended to shoot two birds with one shot. However, the fact that she intended to do the att. migraine treatment during the same journey does not make it a part of the IIG test.

Of course not. You are absolutely right, laca.
However, the 'magically minded' don't tend to make that sort of fine distinction, as you know. Since it's pretty clear an att. treatment isn't going to verify or falsify anything at all, why bring it up here, except for publicity?

Several people expressed concern about the migraine treatment. However, none I recall assumed it was in any way related to the IIG test. That was most probably the reason I picked up on your post and not the others'.

Nor did I, except in the ways I've tried to explain. Sorry to be unclear. I was also concerned for VFF's sake, odd as it may sound. I was actually concerned her need to publicise herself would have provoked the IIG into cancelling the demonstration, so as to stay well and truly clear of any possible legal complications

Another reason could have been pure chance. You shouldn't be flattered in any of those cases

Crushed again.

 

[Cuddles]

Whilst it may seem off-topic to press these more general questions, I'm pursuing them in this thread because they relate quite directly to the purpose of the test. As things stand, and without an understaning on VFF's part to relate the IIG test to her previous experience, all this test is evaluating, and all it's going to falsify in her conception, is her ability to see kidneys on the specific day in question.

Note the use of the word "again" I picked up on in a previous post. It's clear that Anita does not feel that this is a test of her ability in general, and that no matter what happens with IIG, she will still contend and still assert and still believe that she has magical x-ray vision. In other words, she does not see this test as anything other than a show, despite her cargo-cult type use of words like "falsify".

If she is not approaching the test with the understanding that its results reflect on her previous experiences as well as the ones that occur specifically during the test, the whole charade is rather pointless. It's just an exercise in ego-stroking rather than any kind of sceptical enquiry at all.

I agree with this. Scientific experiments don't exist in a vacuum, they need to have some kind of purpose. Anita has explicitly stated that no matter how badly she fails, she will continue to believe she has magical x-ray vision. IIG have implicitly stated that no matter how well she passes, it won't actually mean anything since the protocol is flawed and they are not willing to give out the prize.

The test is therefore completely meaningless, since no matter what the result is nothing will change at all. This could be changed by doing a more rigorous test, but it could also be changed by persuading one (or both) parties to change their response to the results. If Anita could actually be persuaded to accept a negative result as evidence that she doesn't have magic powers, the test could be worth something as it stands. If Anita cannot be persuaded of that then the test remains pointless. Either way, it seems very much relevant to address these points in a thread about the test, since it relates directly to whether there is any point in the test in the first place.

 

[Blackwell]

I agree with those adjectives but volatile has been pressing her on her inability to admit to the fallibility of her memory claims. That's fair but does not directly relate to the IIG test.

Um, let me be clear. It relates to how Anita may interpret her IIG results but not to the results themselves or how others (read JREFers) may chose to interpret them. That is the sense in which I wish others would lay off Anita.

I see your point, and I agree. It is easy, though, to get off on a tangent and forget about the thread topic when the person who the thread is about continues to be evasive.

(slinking back into lurk mode now...)

 

[laca]

It's very clear to me, laca, that an activity of dubious legality would affect the credibility of the IIG demonstration.

Since it's not the IIG doing the "activity of dubious legality", I don't see why. The test's protocol would still be the same, and if it were followed, it would make no difference whether one participant did something illegal a few days back. It would still have the same credibility as before.

Especially if it were performed on a member of the IIG or their circle.

Unless the member of the IIG was there in an official position, I don't see why. Not to mention "their circle"... Why would their circle affect the IIG's professional activity? What exactly constitutes their circle? If my wife is a woo, does that mean I cannot be a skeptic?

 

[laca]

The connection is that both are Anita's claims and that they were supposed to be "tested" during the same visit.

I do not put this aside as you do, but that's cool. Different POV perhaps.

Yes, I agree.

Well it certainly makes me think about the testee's credibility. Why would I ignore it?

I'm not saying it should be ignored, just that it has no bearing on the test itself.

As a side note, IMHO the credibility of a person who claims magical x-ray vision cannot be dented any more

 

[Akhenaten]

Kewl. We're on the same page.

 

[laca]

I've just seen this post, laca.
Of course not. You are absolutely right, laca.
However, the 'magically minded' don't tend to make that sort of fine distinction, as you know. Since it's pretty clear an att. treatment isn't going to verify or falsify anything at all, why bring it up here, except for publicity?

Yes, that is the only reason I see too.

Nor did I, except in the ways I've tried to explain. Sorry to be unclear. I was also concerned for VFF's sake, odd as it may sound. I was actually concerned her need to publicise herself would have provoked the IIG into cancelling the demonstration, so as to stay well and truly clear of any possible legal complications

IANAL, but I doubt it could have been any legal complications for the IIG, unless they had knowingly and willingly assisted in the att. migraine treatment. I assume they would have not.

Crushed again.

 

[SezMe]

Well, I see your point and accept your criticism, but I don't think it's entirely fair.

Whilst it may seem off-topic to press these more general questions, I'm pursuing them in this thread because they relate quite directly to the purpose of the test. As things stand, and without an understaning on VFF's part to relate the IIG test to her previous experience, all this test is evaluating, and all it's going to falsify in her conception, is her ability to see kidneys on the specific day in question.

Note the use of the word "again" I picked up on in a previous post. It's clear that Anita does not feel that this is a test of her ability in general, and that no matter what happens with IIG, she will still contend and still assert and still believe that she has magical x-ray vision. In other words, she does not see this test as anything other than a show, despite her cargo-cult type use of words like "falsify".

If she is not approaching the test with the understanding that its results reflect on her previous experiences as well as the ones that occur specifically during the test, the whole charade is rather pointless. It's just an exercise in ego-stroking rather than any kind of sceptical enquiry at all.

I did not intend to criticize you, volatile and I agree with this post. But have any of the JREF protocols included a condition that the claimant will renounce their claiimed ability if they fail the test? I'd guess not.

We cannot demand - or even influence - how Anita interprets the results of this test. All we can do is make our own judgments and deal with her accordingly.

 

[SezMe]

The test is therefore completely meaningless, since no matter what the result is nothing will change at all. This could be changed by doing a more rigorous test, but it could also be changed by persuading one (or both) parties to change their response to the results. If Anita could actually be persuaded to accept a negative result as evidence that she doesn't have magic powers, the test could be worth something as it stands. If Anita cannot be persuaded of that then the test remains pointless. Either way, it seems very much relevant to address these points in a thread about the test, since it relates directly to whether there is any point in the test in the first place.

This part I disagree with. Assuming the implemented protocol is reasonable, if not fireproof, and Anita fails, I think the test will have significance...to rationalists. But, as noted above, we cannot let how Anita chooses to interpret the result and her subsequent claims deter us from pursuing a test that we think provides useful data.