Vision From Feeling

[Anna Karenina]

by non-organic I meant inorganic lol..now I'm the one who is sounding like a noob

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Noooo!!!!!!!!! Locknar!!!!!!!!!!! No women on a vasectomy detection test!!!!!!!!

 

[Pixel42]

Noooo!!!!!!!!! Locknar!!!!!!!!!!! No women on a vasectomy detection test!!!!!!!!

Whilst I don't think it's necessary for a meaningful test, it would give the opportunity for very clear false positives. How would you react if you looked at, say, the bare back of a person whose gender you did not know, detected that they'd had a vasectomy, and were then told it was a woman? Would you agree that this would be harder for you to explain away, even to yourself, than a false positive on a man?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Ashles.
Most women wear scents or "de"-odorants which smell distinctly different from any chemicals men might splash on themselves.
I suspect it would be possible to judge gender of people in a booth by scent alone.

 

[Ducky]

I don't mean to be the nit-picking science bore but some of the things VisionFromFeeling is saying just don't add up.



You say that your ability works best on detecting health information and that is what you want to test your ability on instead of chemical identification...I find this statement puzzling. The human body is made up completely of organic (and some non-organic) chemicals. Every disease can be quantified at a molecular, chemical level. You should know this if you are a science student. I'm not saying you are lying but your understanding of molecular science seems a little iffy for someone claiming to be a science student.




This doesn't make sense to me. I am a (noob) scientist about to go into post-grad...I did my undergraduate Bachelor of Science in biochemistry (mainly genetics) and biomedical science (mainly microbiology, some physiol) - you don't do two bachelor of sciences at the same time, one in chem and one in physics, no university allows this and it doesn't make any sense. You do a Bachelor of Science and within that you pick two majors or you do a double major. And it takes 3 years, not 5. And there is no research - that happens in post-grad..either honours, or masters, or PhD.

Also, you don't know much about stats so that tells me you must be in your first year or first semester...yet in a chemistry lab you were allowed to use an NMR machine to determine compound structure? I have never, ever heard of a first year student, or a second year student, being allowed to use an NMR machine. Even in third year you might get to use it once, and that would be heavily supervised and you would need training. What kind of NMR was it? It just..doesn't..add up.



I know this might sound like nit-picking but it is really bugging me and I think it detracts from the validity of your claims. Every single person has billions of commensual (i.e harmless or beneficial) bacteria living in their gut...so I don't know what you mean by 'since the stomach detects many types of bacteria and responds with discomfort' or 'it was doing no harm or even intending to do harm, which is unusual for bacteria'.

Stop bringing logic and reason into it. This is obviously a thread meant to be candyland to the incarnations from white-dwarf stars seeking attention. As such, you should pander accordingly. Let's all put on our silly hats.

 

[Belz...]

I don't mean to be the nit-picking science bore but some of the things VisionFromFeeling is saying just don't add up.

It's impossible to nit-pick science, friend. You are quite justified in pointing out any and all inconsistencies in anything. Fire away!

 

[Belz...]

Noooo!!!!!!!!! Locknar!!!!!!!!!!! No women on a vasectomy detection test!!!!!!!!

Why not, really ? If you don't know that they're women, are you worried that you might identify wrongly ?

 

[Locknar]

The point sort of lost in the argument here is that there is an amply testable claim here; and a relatively easy to recruit set of subjects. If men of middle age (for vasectomies) can walk in, be viewed (without knowing what VfF is looking for) and then check off the boxes on a card for "Have you had any of the following: Appendectomy (Y/N); Tonsilectomy (Y/N); Vasectomy (Y/N)", and the results be compared to VfF's results, that's a nice clear comparison.

If VFF would agree, I'd think gender/age/martial neutral status items would be the way to go...certianly less controversial if nothing else. On the surface appendectomy & tonsillectomy, for example, would be ideal.

The only caveat would be clear yes/no; ie. no wiggle room - you either have your appendix or not (for example)...nothing inflamed, nothing "distracted my view", etc.

And given the odds of someone in the skeptic group having had an appendectomy or their tonsils out, that might be testable in the first contact, thus reducing the odds of any background knowledge on Anita's part.

Just my thoughts, MK

Somewhat unstructured, but seems plausible as a first take/initial test.

 

[Old man]

No, old strawman, I'm most certainly not.

Let's try this again:

If VfF said "I'm not getting any Fords out of this" and you said "well, you certainly are getting at least one car" I would be quite right in pointing out that this is not what was said.

Belz, I normally like your posts, but you’re going to have be a little clearer about just what your objection is to the side discussion about VFF’s denial of attention seeking, and particularly about my use of my native language.

But, Miss Kitty, she said PEOPLE. And we all know men are dogs.

But… women always use the word ‘pig’ when they’re referring to me!



Locknar -

Why haven’t you responded to the two questions I posed to you?

Here they are, again –

1) What if Anita detects a ‘vasectomy’ in a woman who’s had a tubal ligation? Is that a hit? Or a miss?

2) Locknar, consider this scenario – a pool of ten men, and ten women.
Half of the men have had vasectomies, the others are ‘intact’.
Anita is correct for nine of the women, and six of the men.
Did she really detect presence/absence of ‘vasectomies’?
If not, why not?

 

[Locknar]

Locknar -

Why haven’t you responded to the two questions I posed to you?

Here they are, again –

1) What if Anita detects a ‘vasectomy’ in a woman who’s had a tubal ligation? Is that a hit? Or a miss?
The claim, working under the vasectomy scenario, is (as I understand it) "detect vasectomy in people"; that is to say a specific medical event/procedure within a test pool. Tubal ligation is a different medical event/procedure and would be a wrong "guess"...as as would tonsillectomy, appendectomy, heart transplant, and a countless list of other medical events/procedures.

[
2) Locknar, consider this scenario – a pool of ten men, and ten women.
Half of the men have had vasectomies, the others are ‘intact’.
Anita is correct for nine of the women, and six of the men.
Did she really detect presence/absence of ‘vasectomies’?
If not, why not?

To put it another way, you have a pool of 20 people 5 of which have had vasectomies. She "guesses" 14 out of 20 correct...70%, far blow the "I'm never wrong" claim.

 

[Old man]

Locknar -

Why haven’t you responded to the two questions I posed to you?

Here they are, again –

1) What if Anita detects a ‘vasectomy’ in a woman who’s had a tubal ligation? Is that a hit? Or a miss?

The claim, working under the vasectomy scenario, is (as I understand it) "detect vasectomy in people"; that is to say a specific medical event/procedure within a test pool. Tubal ligation is a different medical event/procedure and would be a wrong "guess"...as as would tonsillectomy, appendectomy, heart transplant, and a countless list of other medical events/procedures.

But it does raise a question of interpretation, doesn't it? A very similar procedure, in a very similar place, but performed on a woman.

Originally Posted by Old man
2) Locknar, consider this scenario – a pool of ten men, and ten women.
Half of the men have had vasectomies, the others are ‘intact’.
Anita is correct for nine of the women, and six of the men.
Did she really detect presence/absence of ‘vasectomies’?
If not, why not?

To put it another way, you have a pool of 20 people 5 of which have had vasectomies. She "guesses" 14 out of 20 correct...70%, far blow the "I'm never wrong" claim.

Lock, no where in that scenario did I mention 100% accuracy. You're obfuscating. She got 75% of the test subjects right. Does that suggest that she did in fact detect presence/absence of ‘vasectomies’?

 

[roger]

This doesn't make sense to me. I am a (noob) scientist about to go into post-grad...I did my undergraduate Bachelor of Science in biochemistry (mainly genetics) and biomedical science (mainly microbiology, some physiol) - you don't do two bachelor of sciences at the same time, one in chem and one in physics, no university allows this and it doesn't make any sense. You do a Bachelor of Science and within that you pick two majors or you do a double major. And it takes 3 years, not 5. And there is no research - that happens in post-grad..either honours, or masters, or PhD.

This is completely wrong. I know plenty of people who have done two bachelor degrees at the same time, and they are in no way constrained in the say you say. You could do a Bachelor of Chemistry and a Bachelor of Interior Design, should you wish. My cousin did, if I remember correctly, physics and anthropology, and guess what, it took him 5 years. A typical BSc takes 4 years in the States, and 2 majors often take 5, because of the diverse number of requirements. For example, where I went to college, it was trivial to have a double Comp Sci and Math major because Math just required 2 more courses than the Comp Sci course if you chose everything carefully. A Comp Sci and EE degree was just possible in 4 years, if you chose every course rigorously and overloaded every semester. Other choices definitely lead to 5 years.

And no research? Depends on the school - many require some kind of thesis. It's definitely not anywhere on the PhD level, but you have to do some research and write up a little thesis. A quick google will show this to be so. For just one of hundreds of examples, google "UVA bachelor thesis".

You are not just nitpicking, but you are making false claims about the US educational system.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, I normally like your posts, but you’re going to have be a little clearer about just what your objection is to the side discussion about VFF’s denial of attention seeking, and particularly about my use of my native language.

Honestly, I don't think I can make it any clearer (to me, anyway). If I missed a part of the discussion, then please inform me.

I was under the impression that VfF said she didn't get praise, to which you answered that she DID get attention. All praise is attention but all attention is not praise, was my objectioon to what you said. But if she mentioned upthread the need for attention in general then I was mistaken. I'd like you to point that out to me, however, if that is the case.

 

[Old man]

This is completely wrong. I know plenty of people who have done two bachelor degrees at the same time, and they are in no way constrained in the say you say. You could do a Bachelor of Chemistry and a Bachelor of Interior Design, should you wish. My cousin did, if I remember correctly, physics and anthropology, and guess what, it took him 5 years. A typical BSc takes 4 years in the States, and 2 majors often take 5, because of the diverse number of requirements. For example, where I went to college, it was trivial to have a double Comp Sci and Math major because Math just required 2 more courses than the Comp Sci course if you chose everything carefully. A Comp Sci and EE degree was just possible in 4 years, if you chose every course rigorously and overloaded every semester. Other choices definitely lead to 5 years.

And no research? Depends on the school - many require some kind of thesis. It's definitely not anywhere on the PhD level, but you have to do some research and write up a little thesis. A quick google will show this to be so. For just one of hundreds of examples, google "UVA bachelor thesis".

You are not just nitpicking, but you are making false claims about the US educational system.

FYI - some info from the college that Anita is attending.
http://www.psych.uncc.edu/handbk/hbunvreq.htm#dmjr

DOUBLE MAJORS, SECOND DEGREES, AND MINORS
DOUBLE MAJORS
You may choose to complete two majors while earning a bachelors degree.

http://physics.uncc.edu/academics/graduate/m.s.-applied-physics.html

M.S. Applied Physics
Program of Study

The Master of Science program in Applied Physics offers three program concentrations and two degree options.

* Applied Physics Concentration (Thesis and Non-thesis Options)
* Applied Optics Concentration (Thesis Option)
* Medical Physics Concentration (Non-thesis Option)

The Applied Physics Concentration is excellent preparation for those planning to continue their education through the Ph.D., either in physics or an engineering field, or for a career as an instructor in a two-year college. Students electing the Thesis Option will be well qualified for employment in industry or in a research laboratory.

 

[Locknar]

But it does raise a question of interpretation, doesn't it? A very similar procedure, in a very similar place, but performed on a woman.

Similar in intention (ie. sterilization) yes...but location and impacted tubes I'd think different.

If you allow interpretation in...were does it end? I'll be the first to admit I am not Mr Anatomy Expert (contain the laughs)...but for the sake of arguement say the kidneys and ovaries are in the same general area we're talking about. If the criteria were "detect tubal ligation in women"...and the woman had not had that procedure but had a kidney or ovary removed but NOT a tubal ligation would that be a hit?

Sticking with vasceomey...what if the man had no such procedure, but had a kidney stone surgically removed...same general area, would that be a hit? What if the man had no such procedure but had had some other procedure in that area, or received a injury that required stitches (but was otherwise "intact")?

A bit broader...what if she guessed wrong, but then explains it away as "oh, the cyst on the ovary threw me off" or "the dark brown patch on the liver interfered with my reading"?

It goes back to the claim, ie. "detect vasectomy", and how she claims she does this (ie. "I can actually see organs and fluids...I can see the appropriate tubes have been cut" - MY PARAPHRASE). In this context, there is no ambiguity, no "close"....

Lock, no where in that scenario did I mention 100% accuracy. You're obfuscating. She got 75% of the test subjects right. Does that suggest that she did in fact detect presence/absence of ‘vasectomies’?

True; the 100% was derived from the "I'm never wrong" claim from her website/other claims and should not have been introduced.

It would be more along the lines of "she got 75% right, her claimed accuracy is X%" (where X=her claimed accuracy). Her claimed accuracy, I'd suggest, would be less then 100%...but would have to be more then 75% to meet JREF criteria (I'd think).

That said...if you look at the subset (ie. 9 out of 10 women she guessed correctly in your scenario) that would warrant further refinement of the claim and re-testing.

 

[Old man]

Honestly, I don't think I can make it any clearer (to me, anyway). If I missed a part of the discussion, then please inform me.

I was under the impression that VfF said she didn't get praise, to which you answered that she DID get attention. All praise is attention but all attention is not praise, was my objectioon to what you said. But if she mentioned upthread the need for attention in general then I was mistaken. I'd like you to point that out to me, however, if that is the case.

Thanks for the clarification, Belz. It really revolves around her denial of the possibility that this may be attention seeking behavior. This current discussion started about here - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4272235#post4272235 - but early in the thread the question of attention seeking was brought up. I do understand your objection now, but if you'd been following all of the comments, my choice of words may have made more sense. I'll try to be clearer in the future.

 

[Old man]

Similar in intention (ie. sterilization) yes...but location and impacted tubes I'd think different.

If you allow interpretation in...were does it end? I'll be the first to admit I am not Mr Anatomy Expert (contain the laughs)...but for the sake of arguement say the kidneys and ovaries are in the same general area we're talking about. If the criteria were "detect tubal ligation in women"...and the woman had not had that procedure but had a kidney or ovary removed but NOT a tubal ligation would that be a hit?

Sticking with vasceomey...what if the man had no such procedure, but had a kidney stone surgically removed...same general area, would that be a hit? What if the man had no such procedure but had had some other procedure in that area, or received a injury that required stitches (but was otherwise "intact")?

A bit broader...what if she guessed wrong, but then explains it away as "oh, the cyst on the ovary threw me off" or "the dark brown patch on the liver interfered with my reading"?

It goes back to the claim, ie. "detect vasectomy", and how she claims she does this (ie. "I can actually see organs and fluids...I can see the appropriate tubes have been cut" - MY PARAPHRASE). In this context, there is no ambiguity, no "close"....

Exactly. There will enough 'questions' without having multiple sexes to add to the confusion.

True; the 100% was derived from the "I'm never wrong" claim from her website/other claims and should not have been introduced.

It would be more along the lines of "she got 75% right, her claimed accuracy was X%" (where X=her claimed accuracy). Her claimed accuracy, I'd suggest, would be less then 100%...but would have to be more then 75% to meet JREF criteria (I'd think).

That said...if you look at the subset (ie. 9 out of 10 women she guessed correctly in your scenario) that would warrant further refinement of the claim and re-testing.

So, why not make that refinement now?

 

[Old man]

http://physics.uncc.edu/academics/graduate/m.s.-applied-physics.html

Oops. I guess I screwed that one up! I didn't realize I'd managed to get into the MS requirements. I thought I was still looking at the under grad stuff. Oh, well. Ignore that part of my post.

I did find this - http://physics.uncc.edu/academics/undergraduate/honors-program.html

Honors Program
Exceptional students may wish to pursue a degree with honors in physics. Students must complete a senior research project and maintain a minimum GPA in physics.

Not quite a thesis project, though.

 

[Moochie]

I don't mean to be the nit-picking science bore but some of the things VisionFromFeeling is saying just don't add up.

<snip>

Since the very first post by this poster I have had a very strong sense that there is a heck of a lot about the poster and the posts that "doesn't add up," so I'm gratified that somebody else senses this also.

A few pages ago I said that the entire fandango is a hoax. We shall see what we shall see. So far, though, I haven't believed anything in this poster's output. He/she is either a severely deluded person, or a very gifted prankster.


M.

 

[Ashles]

Noooo!!!!!!!!! Locknar!!!!!!!!!!! No women on a vasectomy detection test!!!!!!!!

We've had at least two pages now discussing between ourselves possible interpretations of requirements, suggesting and debating protocols, test subjects, bare skin v clothed skin etc.

And that is Anita's entire contribution?

Is there a lot of point us debating what might or might not be eligable/testable if Anita isn't involved in helping narrow down the protocol requirements? I'm aware she has spent a good while responding on this hread but this is the stage where we are actually describing viable protocols which surely is the most important part.

At least she could have told us whether she can potentially get a reading from cloth covered skin if viewed through a small hole (let's assume we are using a comparable group of test subjects).