VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[lionking]

Who was quoting Anita.

Not at all clear from his post.


ETA Anyone who has followed likelystory would see that his posts are hardly articulate and as he did not have a quote box, I really did not know what he was getting at.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Maybe because the 'show me' stage is passed? This claimant has already been tested, and failed every time. What is left?

 

[Locknar]

This thread has drifted well of course with respect to Rules 0, 11, 12. I've set to Moderated Status for now pending review...posts my be split into new threads, or to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[GeeMack]

BTW, excellent idea to moderate this thread.

Will we hear Jeff or Nigel actually admit that they were wrong about their understanding of the IIG protocol, test, results, and their incorrect interpretation?

 

[paperskater]

What is rational Alchemy? The blog does not define it.

Thanks. What I mean is "Rational Alchemy" as a concept, as distinct from the tradition of Alchemy and its' extensive literature, as for example in:
http://www.alchemylab.com/history_of_alchemy.htm

Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question.

 

[bookitty]

There is some dissatisfaction with the way Jeff Wagg handled the interview, several people have said they would have done things differently.

If that's the case, what specific questions or topics should have been addressed?

 

[Locknar]

I've spent the last couple of hours going through the last 4 or 5 pages of this thread, moving posts to where they seemed "best fit" - either the "General VFF", the IIG, or AAH threads.

If anyone sees something they feel should have been moved, or feel something has been wrongly moved, please PM me.

Other then that...please keep the conversation civil/polite and on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[GeeMack]

There is some dissatisfaction with the way Jeff Wagg handled the interview, several people have said they would have done things differently.

If that's the case, what specific questions or topics should have been addressed?

Maybe you missed the productive suggestions about being somewhat familiar with the subject of the interview to avoid getting buffaloed like he did. Maybe you missed the productive suggestions that when Anita insisted her magical powers had not been falsified and therefore merited further testing he could have used that opportunity to explain burden of proof instead of fawning over her. Maybe you missed the suggestions that he could have treated the whole thing a little more like a skeptic and not so much like it was just a little slice of show biz.

Productive criticism has been offered. Unfortunately some people totally missed it and Jeff pretty much shrugged it off.

 

[bookitty]

Maybe you missed the productive suggestions about being somewhat familiar with the subject of the interview to avoid getting buffaloed like he did. Maybe you missed the productive suggestions that when Anita insisted her magical powers had not been falsified and therefore merited further testing he could have used that opportunity to explain burden of proof instead of fawning over her. Maybe you missed the suggestions that he could have treated the whole thing a little more like a skeptic and not so much like it was just a little slice of show biz.

Productive criticism has been offered. Unfortunately some people totally missed it and Jeff pretty much shrugged it off.

So he missed an opportunity to discuss burden of proof.

Other than that, this doesn't answer my question.

 

[GeeMack]

So he missed an opportunity to discuss burden of proof.

Other than that, this doesn't answer my question.

Maybe there's something wrong with your computer since you not only missed the discussion about this earlier in the thread, but you clearly didn't see it not an inch and a half above this very spot...

Maybe you missed the productive suggestions about being somewhat familiar with the subject of the interview to avoid getting buffaloed like he did.

 

[volatile]

People seem to be diverting somewhat from discussion of the podcast.

What I get is this:
The podcast has the word 'rational' in the title and claims a skeptical approach.
Two of the members felt that no research was necessary prior to an interview - this is sloppy journalism.
When people have tried to correct a misunderstanding about the subject matter, there's a disappointing reluctance to reconsider their approach/errors.
One of the members should be very familiar with the difference between off-forum and on-forum personalities, and claims to be open minded on the subject of people's motivations behind their claims.
Yet, minds were closed on the possibility of including a balancing viewpoint.
The intervewee has displayed more in the way of personal attacks and has been moderated more frequently for it on this forum and yet it is another person - one not moderated for personal attacks who is labelled as someone who rants too much to be interviewed.

Disappointing, and not a great advert for the podcast/site.

100%.

 

[Ashles]

My biggest issue with the interview, this thread in specific and the VfF threads in general is this:

What is most disappointing is watching the number of people who seemingly much prefer to discuss Anita and UncaYimmy to death, pulling apart their motives, how better they could achieve their goals etc - yet many of these same people are completely absent whenever we are discussing Anita's actual claims.

Why? What's the point? Isn't that supposed to be the central issue here?

It's easy to get distracted with Anita and forget that at the centre of all this there is actually a claim (or rather many different claims).

I don't find Jeff talking with a paranormal claimant (who has failed a test yet refuses to see it as a fail) to be remotely interesting without going into detail regarding the test and the claims. There are a billion places on the internet where we can read/see/hear unfounded paranormal claimants.
But in this instance we had a wealth of specifics and tests to discuss. I just don't get why they weren't.

I would have thought the interest should actually lie in the details of this claim - it has been subject to far more skeptical scrutiny than most, and interestingly the claimant continues to generate new claims.
But did Jeff feel it would be somehow 'rude' to ask specifics that might demonstrate where Anita has contradicted herself? Or that claims have altered drastically from previous claims?
Was being overtly skeptical considered too confrontational (and I ask that as a serious question as it seems to be one that the mainstream media constantly has)?

Why make a point of her being a 'physics student' then not discuss the ways in which her approach completely ignores scientific rigour and methodology?
Jeff's claimed reason to talk with Anita is that she has a science background yet still falls into all the standard excuses of any average paranormal claimant. Why completely ignore this interesting dichotomy?

What can anyone possibly learn about her 'mindset' without talking about the issues with the claims?

This is sad because the interview falls into exactly the same trap that we criticise the media in general for - being far too interested in having a spot on an 'interesting' topic rather than actually examining the subject as critically as it deserves.

I just don't understand this, and incidentally I don't understand why people can't put the same energy they put into dissecting StopVFF into discussing Anita's claims and trying to make them more scientific.

It's not always easy to stay focused with Anita as she deliberately changes direction (and current claim) repeatedly and seems much more interested in talking about herself than the specifics of testing a claim, which unfortunately I feel this interview played right into.

As an aside we are reaching a difficult situation now as her testing seems to be becoming so guess related and focused on ailments which come and go (Migraines) that it's hard to even focus on new actual testing.

And maybe that's the biggest issue of all.
Where does this claim go next?
As the 'testing' gets more prone to guessing and the claims more focused on the usual capricious type (eg migraine) it's possible we will likely see more interviews of this type and less actual testing and probably even less discussion of testing.

 

[remirol]

What is most disappointing is watching the number of people who seemingly much prefer to discuss Anita and UncaYimmy to death, pulling apart their motives, how better they could achieve their goals etc - yet many of these same people are completely absent whenever we are discussing Anita's actual claims.

Why? What's the point? Isn't that supposed to be the central issue here?

That's a fair question. Response continued below.

I would have thought the interest should actually lie in the details of this claim - it has been subject to far more skeptical scrutiny than most, and interestingly the claimant continues to generate new claims.
But did Jeff feel it would be somehow 'rude' to ask specifics that might demonstrate where Anita has contradicted herself? Or that claims have altered drastically from previous claims?

Can't speak for what Jeff was thinking, but I can say that if the RA guys wanted a grill-VFF session bringing up everything she's said in the past, it would've been far easier to just get UY. That he was considered and rejected indicates that they didn't want a grill-VFF session... for their own reasons (stated elsewhere in thread, I believe).

Was being overtly skeptical considered too confrontational (and I ask that as a serious question as it seems to be one that the mainstream media constantly has)?

This is tricky. On the one hand, I am very familiar with how quickly you can lose a non-skeptical audience by shifting into "confrontational" mode regarding any given claim. People like to hang onto their hopes, even when they aren't particularly rational ones. It gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. So anytime you step up in the role of debunker, you risk people stopping listening to you entirely... defeating the entire purpose of speaking in the first place.

On the other hand, though, allowing BS to be spread completely unchecked and unconfronted is no way to fly either, especially if the only reason is "I'm worried people won't like me." I'm not familiar with Rational Alchemy's intended audience, but if that audience is mostly skeptics then I think this was a) the wrong approach to take, and b) RA needs to aim at a different audience. There's too much skeptics-preaching-to-the-choir out there; there needs to be more getting ordinary joes involved and interested.

That said -- being too confrontational and argumentative, especially to a person who is not being obnoxious themselves, is a great way to lose the interest of the average Joe. Someone who wants to confront woos has a fine line to walk.

What can anyone possibly learn about her 'mindset' without talking about the issues with the claims?

Rather a lot, actually. Why do you think pointing out holes in the claims is the only way?

I just don't understand this, and incidentally I don't understand why people can't put the same energy they put into dissecting StopVFF into discussing Anita's claims and trying to make them more scientific.

Because in the end, the only person who will make the claims scientific is Anita herself. There are enough people (probably too many, honestly) trying to "work" with her, and the reality of this is that trying to do the work for her simply leads directly to evasions, as you note below...

It's not always easy to stay focused with Anita as she deliberately changes direction (and current claim) repeatedly and seems much more interested in talking about herself than the specifics of testing a claim,

... see? I'm absolutely not a fan of spending this much time and effort on someone who isn't willing to readily formulate a specific claim and attempt a test. The fact that this thread is in GenSkep rather than the MDC forum is highly indicative of what direction it's taken -- there doesn't seem to be any interest by Anita of ever trying for the MDC. Trying to hand-build the claims for her, well -- as noted above. And there seems to be a penchant for derailing and trying to get her to "admit" things, which is sort of a laugher on the face of it. Come on, now. How effective has that ever been? With anyone?

As the 'testing' gets more prone to guessing and the claims more focused on the usual capricious type (eg migraine) it's possible we will likely see more interviews of this type and less actual testing and probably even less discussion of testing.

Of course. My advice would be to stop talking about anything that isn't testing, then, but the RA interview is hardly the only offender in this regard, as I may have mentioned elsewhere.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't have a problem with different styles of interviewing; an apparently sympathetic questioner can sometimes get more information from a subject than a more confrontational one. That said, the RA interview was still poorly prepared for; the IIG test protocol was clearly not understood by the people commenting on it, and it was bang out of order for Nigel to be claiming that Anita had 2 out of 3 hits which implied more testing was needed. There's a difference between being sympathetic and bending over backwards, misleading both your subject and your audience.

 

[Locknar]

Will we hear Jeff or Nigel actually admit that they were wrong about their understanding of the IIG protocol, test, results, and their incorrect interpretation?

IMO it has been clearly shown they were wrong wrt the IIG protocol, test, results and interpretation.

Will Jeff or Nigel make such a post...only time will tell.

Why make a point of her being a 'physics student' then not discuss the ways in which her approach completely ignores scientific rigour and methodology?
Jeff's claimed reason to talk with Anita is that she has a science background yet still falls into all the standard excuses of any average paranormal claimant. Why completely ignore this interesting dichotomy?

To claim she has a "science background" lends more credence then is due IMO. She is a undergrad student, that is to say a amateur. The mistakes she makes in both protocol development and results analysis reflect this to some degree.

She ignores input from others, many of whom are not amateurs but are/have been actual "scientists" working in science/R&D with advanced degrees in science related fields. To me, this is intellectual dishonesty and not mistakes I would attribute to someone at her education/experience level.

To use this claimed "science background" as a criteria for interviewing on Rational Alchemy is folly; thus far she has demonstrated nothing more then typical "woo woo" with the standard excuses of any typical paranormal claimant.

Prior knowledge/research of her background not withstanding, she is a undergrad student with a "woo woo" claim; hardly unique nor especially interesting IMO.

As an aside we are reaching a difficult situation now as her testing seems to be becoming so guess related and focused on ailments which come and go (Migraines) that it's hard to even focus on new actual testing.

Until her approach changes, and she accepts input without manipulation, any "test" she develops is doomed to fail, any results useless....as any "woo woo" developed "test."

 

[Ashles]

Can't speak for what Jeff was thinking, but I can say that if the RA guys wanted a grill-VFF session bringing up everything she's said in the past, it would've been far easier to just get UY. That he was considered and rejected indicates that they didn't want a grill-VFF session... for their own reasons (stated elsewhere in thread, I believe).

It seems not - I'm just not clear on what it was supposed to be.

I agree with Locknar's points - having her on an interview because she has 'a science background' is a bit dodgy as she a) is onlu an undergrad and b) has repeatedly demonstrated she dosn't apply this 'science background' to herself.

But having chosen her for the interview apparently for this reason, it then seems to be ignored as a subject.

If she's just being interviewed because she is chatty and communicative then I don't see why Anita as opposed to any number of perky and enthusiastic paranormal claimants.

This is tricky. On the one hand, I am very familiar with how quickly you can lose a non-skeptical audience by shifting into "confrontational" mode regarding any given claim. People like to hang onto their hopes, even when they aren't particularly rational ones. It gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. So anytime you step up in the role of debunker, you risk people stopping listening to you entirely... defeating the entire purpose of speaking in the first place.

It's difficult, I agree. But I believe that, at least in this type of interview, these positions have to be challenged to a certain degree otherwise what is the point of having an interview that is connected by whatever means to the concept of skepticism or critical thinking.

There are any number of places where uncritical interviews can be conducted with paranormal claimants.

On the other hand, though, allowing BS to be spread completely unchecked and unconfronted is no way to fly either, especially if the only reason is "I'm worried people won't like me." I'm not familiar with Rational Alchemy's intended audience, but if that audience is mostly skeptics then I think this was a) the wrong approach to take, and b) RA needs to aim at a different audience. There's too much skeptics-preaching-to-the-choir out there; there needs to be more getting ordinary joes involved and interested.

That said -- being too confrontational and argumentative, especially to a person who is not being obnoxious themselves, is a great way to lose the interest of the average Joe. Someone who wants to confront woos has a fine line to walk.

That's why sticking to the tests, the results and the claims should be a must for these interviews. None of those subjects would be anything the claimant themselves has not expressed or published, but especially with someone like Anita, they are where the really interesting issues with the whole claim are located.
We know paranormal claimants love to talk about themselves and theorise about their abilities using pseudoscience (offering a platform for this on a skeptical podcast seems odd) - the real meat is why X specific claimant is not currently overturning science or opening up new fields of research.

Rather a lot, actually. Why do you think pointing out holes in the claims is the only way?

Because I'm not sure what part of the mindset is particularly unique or worthy of note.
Paranormal claimants are ten a penny and the ones who like to talk about themselves are at least nine a penny.

I've worked in a holistic healing centre and this kind of mindset seems quite widespread to me and nowhere near as interesting as the specifics of any given claim.

Because in the end, the only person who will make the claims scientific is Anita herself. There are enough people (probably too many, honestly) trying to "work" with her, and the reality of this is that trying to do the work for her simply leads directly to evasions, as you note below...

True, but if nobody works on these then she complains she has tried to engage skeptics and they refuse to help her. She cannot complain that she hasn't had huge amounts of assistance from sketics in formulating protocols.
Okay she has ignored all of it, but I feel it needs to be done in order to emaliorate the criticism she periodically levels at skeptics.

... see? I'm absolutely not a fan of spending this much time and effort on someone who isn't willing to readily formulate a specific claim and attempt a test. The fact that this thread is in GenSkep rather than the MDC forum is highly indicative of what direction it's taken -- there doesn't seem to be any interest by Anita of ever trying for the MDC. Trying to hand-build the claims for her, well -- as noted above. And there seems to be a penchant for derailing and trying to get her to "admit" things, which is sort of a laugher on the face of it. Come on, now. How effective has that ever been? With anyone?

True but isn't that part of the point of this site? You have some people who tirelessly debate with homeopaths, bigfoot spotters, conspiracists even (and they have patience that humbles us all) holocaust deniers.
I don't know if we have any effect, I just feel that unchecked some people can get worse or start to impact others.
We can never know but maybe our constant review of Anita's tests and skepticism has prevented her from entering the, as they term it, 'woo market'. Maybe not.

However I see people spend almost as much time berating UncaYimmy for pretty much exactly this, while in the process doing pretty much exactly the same themselves. All fair enough viewpoints of course, but I think the time is a little more profitably spent discouraging someone who seems to have a real desire to use pseudoscience in trying to treat people with real medical conditions.

Of course. My advice would be to stop talking about anything that isn't testing, then, but the RA interview is hardly the only offender in this regard, as I may have mentioned elsewhere.

I do agree with this very strongly actually. I know I have been guilty of going off on the many, many (manymanymany) Anita-tangents (Anitangents?) but I am trying to retain as far as possible focused specifically on the claims.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I haven't listened yet, but the new Ratioinal Alchemy podcast is up at http://rational-alchemy.com/

The blurb says they discuss the Anita Ikonen "scandal."

Ward

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I don't believe I misunderstood the IIG protocol. Anita failed utterly and completely to do what she claimed she could do with the IIG. However, she did beat chance at determining who was missing a kidney. There could be any number of reasons for that: poor blinding, obvious clues, collusion, or even actual ability. Dumb luck works too.

I don't really care which of those it was, I'm just saying it's interesting.

Now to say that the IIG test proves that her claim is false, is just ridiculous. You can't prove a claim false with a single test. It is a fallacy to think so.

To claim that there's no point in testing her again, well, that's up to personal opinion. I don't think she has any abilities; she thinks she does. She says more testing will either prove or disprove that. Fine. In my opinion, she should hone whatever skills she has and try again. Of course, the IIG isn't obligated to test her again. Finding someone to test her is her problem.

We did talk a little bit about the "VFF Controversy" at the end of the most recent podcast, but it wasn't even close to the main topic. I seem to recall talking about the Catholic Church quite a bit.

 

[Drs_Res]

I hate to tell you this Jeff, but what she did was not beating chance. We had a person in the chat that picked almost the same people as VfF. They missed on #1, Hit on #2 and picked the same person and same wrong side as VfF on number 3 IIRC.

Should that person be tested as well?

VfF only got one out of 3 correct, well within chance.

How do you figure that she beat chance odds?
I don't think you really understand the claim, the protocol and the results.

 

[kittynh]

She sounds very nice, which makes things very difficult. Because you want to like her.

Im not sure finding someone to test her is a problem. Because, testing takes a lot of effort and time and perhaps even money. If she was willing to put up the money and find people willing to invest the time, that's great. But its hard to think of any science student reallly thinking they have these cool powers.

Anyway, sounds a lot like that one woman that Randi tested years ago. She was so delightful and nice a person, no one could imagine in any way she was not being 100% honest. Im not saying Anita IS dishonest, though maybe on some level she is, or maybe the payoff for continued "belief" is better than the payoff for just going back to being whatever. The one thing is that a lot of attention from skeptics may show her tht hey "Skeptics have a lot of fun, and feel special, without needing this THING". She sounds like she might be on the verge of becoming a skeptic. And that would be neat, because she could share a lot with skeptics about what changed her mind and how she gave up her "belief" that she was "gifted".

I mean, changing the known laws of the world is a pretty big claim. Her claim is a BIG claim. I mean earth shattering if true. Im not sure people really GET that. Are you REALLY sure? REALLY? Because you KNOW what this means?

I deal with alien abductees, that don't seem to GET that if they really ARE abducted, its one hell of a big story and the entire world as we know it will change. So I think a good hold on "wait, this is terrifically HUGE" is important for anyone claiming paranormal abilities that isn't a charlatan.