VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Paul2]

It seems that we have overlooked probably the easiest test that could be done.
Use a full screen and VfF has to tell if there is someone on the other side or not.
10 trials and only once in the 10 trials will there be no one behind the screen.

It should be easy to for her to detect if there is a person/isn't a person behind the screen, right?

And again, Bravo!

Edited: And, of course, let's include UncaYimmy's suggestion that the screen be marked where the person will stand so there should be no orientation problems for Anita.

 

[Akhenaten]

It seems that we have overlooked probably the easiest test that could be done.
Use a full screen and VfF has to tell if there is someone on the other side or not.
10 trials and only once in the 10 trials will there be no one behind the screen.

It should be easy to for her to detect if there is a person/isn't a person behind the screen, right?

Friar Ockham salutes you.


ETA: Or even simpler(?) Why use people and a screen? Wouldn't a rat in/not in a shoe box work just as well?


EATA: In the interests of demonstrating my enthusiasm and support, I have a shoe box without a rat in it that I am willing to donate, in order to keep the claimants costs down.

 

[Sun Countess]

For bonus points, she could determine whether the person was male or female.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has serious qualms about allowing VfF to see the person or even that person's outline behind a paper screen. If I knew that I was chosen as the one-kidney volunteer at a test, and that somebody would be looking at me and nine other people, I'm sure I would unintentionally give off clues that I was that chosen one. Nine random volunteers and one special one, and all she has to do is pick the one who feels special. It has nothing to do with the number of kidneys.

 

[Kariboo]

It seems that we have overlooked probably the easiest test that could be done.
Use a full screen and VfF has to tell if there is someone on the other side or not.
10 trials and only once in the 10 trials will there be no one behind the screen.

It should be easy to for her to detect if there is a person/isn't a person behind the screen, right?

let me add to the chorus of applause for you

So Vff what do you think, this is brilliant in it's simplicity no?

 

[Kariboo]

Originally Posted by Giggywig View Post
Ok then, how about this. You need 20 volunteers, 10 with both kidneys and 10 with one kidney. Somebody else will randomly select 10 of these people and assign a time when they will be seen. You will see these 10 people one at a time, and for each one you will say if you can see one or two kidneys. They will be clothed at all times and you will only see them from behind. You will not speak to them or touch them. They will be seated on a comfortable chair for 15 minutes. You will have to supply an ultrasound machine or pay for ultrasounds for the 10 volunteers you viewed. You will pay for your own transportation.

Absolutely not. First of all, to find 20 volunteers but only use 10 of them? Finding volunteers is a lot of work, and then to discard half of them? What ever distribution of one-kidney or two-kidneys would result in the 10 chosen volunteers could be assigned to 10 volunteers from the start. For instance if randomization says that 8 would have one kidney and 2 would have two kidneys then just find that number of each type of volunteer!

Absolutely yes. Having 10 people with an unknown number op people having a missing kidney and you having to choose for every one of them how many kidneys they have is a far better idea than just 1 person with a missing kidney. The randomization will be better. The blindness of the study will be better and your odds of just guessing the right number of kidneys for 10 people increases from 1:10 to about 1:1000.

If you can do what you say you can do this setup is true to your claim but is a better statistical test.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Drs_Res :

It should be easy to for her to detect if there is a person/isn't a person behind the screen, right?

While I congratulate Drs_Res brilliant simplicity with this suggestion, of course it isn't going to happen ..

The weaseling should prove entertaining, though...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Absolutely yes. Having 10 people with an unknown number op people having a missing kidney and you having to choose for every one of them how many kidneys they have is a far better idea than just 1 person with a missing kidney. The randomization will be better. The blindness of the study will be better and your odds of just guessing the right number of kidneys for 10 people increases from 1:10 to about 1:1000.

If you can do what you say you can do this setup is true to your claim but is a better statistical test.

For the sake of test arrangements I think it is a good idea. So with ten people, each of which either has one kidney or two kidneys, a 1 in 2 chance of guessing correctly, and with ten people in total, would the total odds of getting 10 right be 1 in 1024? That way we only need to find 10 volunteers instead of 40, and with 15 minutes with each person the total time is reduced from 10 hours to 2 1/2 hours.

The test would be harder for me to pass though, because if I have 10 persons and I know that one of them is missing a kidney, it is easier for me to select the one that feels most like the one-kidney person. With this new suggested test protocol, I have to work really hard with each and every volunteer. Oh well, I'll do it. But don't forget that I'm going to pass on a volunteer if I'm not absolutely certain. I won't be forced to guess. I'll either report what my perception was, or I won't try to fill in the blanks and scramble up some guess if the perception was not there and was not clear enough.

 

[Sun Countess]

The test would be harder for me to pass though, because if I have 10 persons and I know that one of them is missing a kidney, it is easier for me to select the one that feels most like the one-kidney person. With this new suggested test protocol, I have to work really hard with each and every volunteer.

It's certainly easier to pick the one person who's been singled out as having a condition that no other volunteer has. It doesn't matter if it's kidneys or gallbladders.

It's like giving a pebble to one child in a group of ten and then asking that student to "not give it away" when the strange lady comes by to guess who's holding the pebble. Whatever happened to double-blinding?

 

[Giggywig]

For the sake of test arrangements I think it is a good idea. So with ten people, each of which either has one kidney or two kidneys, a 1 in 2 chance of guessing correctly, and with ten people in total, would the total odds of getting 10 right be 1 in 1024? That way we only need to find 10 volunteers instead of 40, and with 15 minutes with each person the total time is reduced from 10 hours to 2 1/2 hours.

You don't need 40 volunteers. You need 20, unless you are not in charge of finding them. Otherwise you will know the makeup of the test set.

The test would be harder for me to pass though, because if I have 10 persons and I know that one of them is missing a kidney, it is easier for me to select the one that feels most like the one-kidney person. With this new suggested test protocol, I have to work really hard with each and every volunteer. Oh well, I'll do it. But don't forget that I'm going to pass on a volunteer if I'm not absolutely certain. I won't be forced to guess. I'll either report what my perception was, or I won't try to fill in the blanks and scramble up some guess if the perception was not there and was not clear enough.

You have to understand, I (and I assume most others) are in no way interested in making the test easier for you to pass. I am interested in a test that is a better measure of whether you have paranormal powers or not. But I see you're starting to form excuses. A pass must be the same as a miss. If you need to adjust the time limit per person, that's one thing but if you are allowed to pass without penalty, you will skew the test results. It will no longer be a 1 in 1024 chance of success. In the extreme, if you pass on 9 and guess on 1 and there were 5 people with 2 kidneys and 5 with one, it's a 50/50 shot.

 

[Kariboo]

Oh well, I'll do it. But don't forget that I'm going to pass on a volunteer if I'm not absolutely certain. I won't be forced to guess. I'll either report what my perception was, or I won't try to fill in the blanks and scramble up some guess if the perception was not there and was not clear enough.

You can pass all you want as long as a pass constitutes a fail.

Your claim is that you can see if a person has 1 or 2 kidneys.

So
saying that someone has 2 kidneys when they have 1=fail
saying that someone has 1 kidney when they have 2=fail
Not being able to determine how many kidneys a person has =fail

Because if you can't determine how many kidneys a person has you can not do what you claim

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

The test would be harder for me to pass though, because if I have 10 persons and I know that one of them is missing a kidney, it is easier for me to select the one that feels most like the one-kidney person.

Are you sure you have all the options covered here?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I tried with a plastic patio screen that lets through the outline of what is behind it, and I was unable to form the perceptions even though I knew both the location and distance to the kidneys. So the problem that certain screens introduce is more than just about location and distance, it seems that some screen materials also block out the "vibrational stuff" that I am picking up that then forms the images.

A screen must allow visibility to the extent that I can discern location and distance to various parts of the body, but a screen must also be made of a material that lets through the "vibrational information" that I claim to detect and that translates into the visual and felt perceptions.

I then tried a paper screen and to my surprise the vibrational information was not blocked. I could see the outline of the person through the screen, and I felt that the screen was thin enough to let through the vibrational information that I use, what ever that is. I will still try the paper screen plenty more before I agree to use it on a test, but so far from first attempts I have not excluded the possibility of using a paper screen on the test.

Which brings me to the question: Why do we need a paper screen in the first place? Obviously it would be better for the test, to control for various visual clues that could interfere and throw off the statistics, but one isn't supposed to see a kidney through the clothes and back of a person just by looking? And surely we wouldn't use the same persons twice on a test? Their specific outline and movements would give them away!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You don't need 40 volunteers. You need 20, unless you are not in charge of finding them. Otherwise you will know the makeup of the test set.

Absolutely not. The Skeptics find the volunteers and by no means should they have to find 20 volunteers and then send 10 of them home and keep 10. I won't know the makeup of the test either way. Only the Skeptics will know what luck they are having in finding how many one-kidney volunteers and two-kidney volunteers, so they can either use what ever persons they have found and make a test out of that, or they can all get together before they even begin finding volunteers and randomly determine how many one-kidney persons and how many two-kidney persons to find. Look, I just used an online randomizer and it told me to use four one-kidney volunteers and six two-kidney volunteers for the test! Gee, if I were setting up the test for VFF, and I wasn't her, she would never know what numbers I came up with! Good thing I'm a clever Skeptic and I know how to use a randomizer so that I don't have to find 20 volunteers and send half of them home, because now I know what ten I have to find! Aren't I clever!

You have to understand, I (and I assume most others) are in no way interested in making the test easier for you to pass. I am interested in a test that is a better measure of whether you have paranormal powers or not. But I see you're starting to form excuses. A pass must be the same as a miss. If you need to adjust the time limit per person, that's one thing but if you are allowed to pass without penalty, you will skew the test results. It will no longer be a 1 in 1024 chance of success. In the extreme, if you pass on 9 and guess on 1 and there were 5 people with 2 kidneys and 5 with one, it's a 50/50 shot.

Of course you don't want to make the test easier for me to pass, but meanwhile surely you understand that it is in the interest of the claimant to ask for a test that best allows for her claimed ability to come through, within the limitations of ensuring a proper test. It is a matter of balancing out test requirements and the claim and meeting somewhere in the middle where both can be happy. Or how about we just try the underground bunker test? It would be really good for test purposes, and who cares about that "vibrational stuff" that VFF claims to detect, it doesn't exist anyway and she's going to fail the test anyway.

ETA: Bring extra volunteers in case I need to pass on some.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You can pass all you want as long as a pass constitutes a fail.

Your claim is that you can see if a person has 1 or 2 kidneys.

So
saying that someone has 2 kidneys when they have 1=fail
saying that someone has 1 kidney when they have 2=fail
Not being able to determine how many kidneys a person has =fail

Because if you can't determine how many kidneys a person has you can not do what you claim

Good point. I will have to think about that, I think you are right, even though of course as a claimant I would like to be allowed to pass if I wasn't certain with a person. But if you are right, of course I would try a test where I am not allowed to pass. Just make sure you guys aren't making a really hard test for me, if a test could allow me to pass on a couple volunteers then by all means let me do that.

 

[Kariboo]

meanwhile surely you understand that it is in the interest of the claimant to ask for a test that best allows for her claimed ability to come through, within the limitations of ensuring a proper test.

Yes, your claimed ability is to be able to detect if a person has 1 or 2 kidneys. If you can't detect that....your claim has been falsified. If you are unable to see how many kidneys a person has you. can. not. do. what. you. claim.

You have never before said that you are only able to do so in x% of cases, because if the latter is the case you will have to specify in how many and what kind of people you are unable to detect kidneys so it can be excluded from the test.

This is exactly why I asked you to specify how you can prevent excuses before the fact. Suddenly bringing up that you may not be able to detect kidneys at all is 1. against your claim so should in itself be a reason for you to give up the claim. 2. an excuse you can use to 'not falsify your claim'. You will have to exclude this if you want to do a decent test.

 

[Akhenaten]

I tried with a plastic patio screen that lets through the outline of what is behind it, and I was unable to form the perceptions even though I knew both the location and distance to the kidneys.

That's called "reality"

So the problem that certain screens introduce is more than just about location and distance, it seems that some screen materials also block out the "vibrational stuff" that I am picking up that then forms the images.

The full-body test will eliminate this problem

A screen must allow visibility to the extent that I can discern location and distance to various parts of the body, but a screen must also be made of a material that lets through the "vibrational information" that I claim to detect and that translates into the visual and felt perceptions.

The full-body test will eliminate this problem

I then tried a paper screen and to my surprise the vibrational information was not blocked. I could see the outline of the person through the screen, and I felt that the screen was thin enough to let through the vibrational information that I use, what ever that is. I will still try the paper screen plenty more before I agree to use it on a test, but so far from first attempts I have not excluded the possibility of using a paper screen on the test.

The full-body test will eliminate this problem

Which brings me to the question: Why do we need a paper screen in the first place? Obviously it would be better for the test, to control for various visual clues that could interfere and throw off the statistics, but one isn't supposed to see a kidney through the clothes and back of a person just by looking? And surely we wouldn't use the same persons twice on a test? Their specific outline and movements would give them away!

The full-body test will eliminate this problem

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

What if I have medical perceptions but not always? I don't know that. If I have a test I will state how many kidneys I perceive, but IF in a volunteer I for some reason can't find their kidneys then I will absolutely not try to guess somehow. Of course I need to be given the option to pass. Otherwise we are testing a possible mixture of perceptions combined with guessing ability.

I really don't expect to pass, I just want to have that option available just in case. If I perceive one kidney that is my answer, if I perceive two kidneys that is my answer, if I don't perceive kidneys I answer that I didn't make a perception and the perception was not there and can not be tested for accuracy.

ETA: Akhenaten, what is a "full-body test"?

 

[Kariboo]

Good point. I will have to think about that, I think you are right, even though of course as a claimant I would like to be allowed to pass if I wasn't certain with a person. But if you are right, of course I would try a test where I am not allowed to pass. Just make sure you guys aren't making a really hard test for me, if a test could allow me to pass on a couple volunteers then by all means let me do that.

Again, this is just testing what you claim to be able to do. Asking you to perform your chosen ability is not 'making it hard'. I don't know how to explain it better to you. Passing is accepting that you cannot read a person which is contrary to your claim (by your account the strongest claim you have). Passing means you are not able to see inside a person to detect their kidneys. Not being able to see inside a person is a falsification of your claim.

Passing can not be accepted into a test protocol apart from it being a fail and you agreeing that it is a fail

 

[Ashles]

Just make sure you guys aren't making a really hard test for me, if a test could allow me to pass on a couple volunteers then by all means let me do that.

No passing, obviously, unless a pass is assumed to equal 2 normal kidneys.
Anything else turns this even further into a guessing game.
This is your strongest claim?
10 people, one with only one kidney, no less than 15 minutes analysis per person and you still want to be able to pass on subjects?
Didn't this claim start off with your ability to see into people to a molecular level?
So, no passing should be allowed, otherwise this reduces the guessing odds to ludicrous levels. Let's try not to waste the IIG and volunteers time too unnecessarily.

 

[Kariboo]

What if I have medical perceptions but not always? I don't know that.

Why not, you have had ample time to find that out.

If I have a test I will state how many kidneys I perceive, but IF in a volunteer I for some reason can't find their kidneys then I will absolutely not try to guess somehow. Of course I need to be given the option to pass. Otherwise we are testing a possible mixture of perceptions combined with guessing ability.

You can pass as long as you agree that it counts as a failure to do as you claim