• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

Rodney said:
I'm arguing all that? :) I thought that I was arguing the following: "It's certainly true that lotteries and casinos make money, but I'm not aware of any study done of either lotteries or casinos demonstrating that there is no psi effect . . . In casinos, there could conceivably be a negative psi effect that offsets a positive psi effect, wherein some people lose even more than would be expected by chance, offsetting those who do win. It also could be that the casino psi effect is very limited, and so, while some people don't lose as much as would be expected by chance, they can't overcome the house odds advantage." See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5368099&postcount=72
Click to expand...


Of course to rational, sane, intelligent people, if the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its non-existence, we say that thing does not exist.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I fully realized it was your opinion when I asked you to support it, this being a discussion board centered around critical thinking and all. Are you under the impression that "it's my opinion" is a "get out of jail free" card or something?
Click to expand...
I am under the impression that my opinion is worth the same as your's
 
tsig, everyone has an equal right to their opinion, but that doesn't make the substance of all opinions equal. I have just as much right as anyone to say that 2+2=5, but the substance of that opinion is worthless.

So, did you mean you had an equal right to your opinion? I think UY was challenging the substance of your opinion, not your right to it.
 
tsig said:
I am under the impression that my opinion is worth the same as your's
Click to expand...

Actually, at this point nobody besides you knows if your opinion is worth anything or not because you haven't given any reasoning or evidence behind it. That's what I'm asking for. I might read what you have to say and conclude it is a brilliant opinion. Or maybe I find out you really don't have anything at all to support your opinion, so I dismiss it.
 
Rodney said:
I'm arguing all that? :) I thought that I was arguing the following: "It's certainly true that lotteries and casinos make money, but I'm not aware of any study done of either lotteries or casinos demonstrating that there is no psi effect . . . In casinos, there could conceivably be a negative psi effect that offsets a positive psi effect, wherein some people lose even more than would be expected by chance, offsetting those who do win. It also could be that the casino psi effect is very limited, and so, while some people don't lose as much as would be expected by chance, they can't overcome the house odds advantage." See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5368099&postcount=72
Click to expand...
What's the difference between "psi effect" and dumb luck? Do you have any credible evidence that they aren't the same thing?
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
tsig, everyone has an equal right to their opinion, but that doesn't make the substance of all opinions equal. I have just as much right as anyone to say that 2+2=5, but the substance of that opinion is worthless.

So, did you mean you had an equal right to your opinion? I think UY was challenging the substance of your opinion, not your right to it.
Click to expand...

So some opinions are more right than others?
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
I'm arguing all that? :) I thought that I was arguing the following: "It's certainly true that lotteries and casinos make money, but I'm not aware of any study done of either lotteries or casinos demonstrating that there is no psi effect . . . In casinos, there could conceivably be a negative psi effect that offsets a positive psi effect, wherein some people lose even more than would be expected by chance, offsetting those who do win. It also could be that the casino psi effect is very limited, and so, while some people don't lose as much as would be expected by chance, they can't overcome the house odds advantage." See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5368099&postcount=72
Click to expand...


As my Vietnamese naturopath frequently tells me as he hands me yet another bottle of "natural" viagra, "No psi-effects."


M.
 
tsig said:
So some opinions are more right than others?
Click to expand...

Isn't this obvious?

If 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 are opinions, as one could infer that you think, given your reply to my example, one is right and the other isn't. "Vanilla ice cream is tasty" is another opinion, of which type that isn't more right than, say, the opinion that chocolate is tasty.

This seems pretty elementary, why don't you cut to the chase and get to your point?
 
Rodney said:
How do you define "dumb luck"?
Click to expand...


You know, like Anita guessing a missing kidney, or a few members of the audience making exactly the same guesses as each other or as Anita. That's dumb luck.
 
Rodney said:
How do you define "dumb luck"?
Click to expand...
When people respond to a question with a question it often reflects that they have difficulty answering the original question. Especially when they already know the answer to their question.
 
Back to the topic - VFF admits that she failed the IIG test in terms of the protocol but infers (at the very least) that the test provided some evidence of her claimed abilities despite the protocol. I think the unnecessary complex nature of the test “allowed” her to do this. VFF’s “x-ray vision” claim could have been tested with a very simple test that would have had a self-evident and unambiguous outcome. If VFF refused to undergo such simple testing then I think perhaps it was a mistake to test her at all.
 
ynot said:
Back to the topic - VFF admits that she failed the IIG test in terms of the protocol but infers (at the very least) that the test provided some evidence of her claimed abilities despite the protocol. I think the unnecessary complex nature of the test “allowed” her to do this. VFF’s “x-ray vision” claim could have been tested with a very simple test that would have had a self-evident and unambiguous outcome. If VFF refused to undergo such simple testing then I think perhaps it was a mistake to test her at all.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that all of the effort the IIG took was done to convince Anita of something? What I'm driving at is what do we care what Anita claims? She claimed nonsense before the test, and she's claiming nonsense now. Can't stop people from claiming stuff. So, how is it a "mistake" to test her?
 
UncaYimmy said:
Are you arguing that all of the effort the IIG took was done to convince Anita of something? What I'm driving at is what do we care what Anita claims? She claimed nonsense before the test, and she's claiming nonsense now. Can't stop people from claiming stuff. So, how is it a "mistake" to test her?
Click to expand...
Didn’t say it was a mistake to test her per se. I’m questioning if the IIG test was good enough to warrant testing her. Especially when a better test was clearly available. It would be better to say that a persons paranormal claim couldn’t be tested because they wouldn’t agree to a valid test rather than run a poor test that allows them to claim they were partially right.
 
Last edited:
What I think was “wrong” about the IIG test . . .

The test shouldn’t have been to detect kidneys. It should have been to detect people.

Multiple people shouldn’t have been tested together. Only one person should have been tested at a time.

The whole person shouldn’t have been visible. Only the clothed lower back of the person should have been visible.

The test shouldn’t have continued after her first wrong guess. The test failed on the first wrong guess so why continue?
 
ynot said:
Only the clothed lower back of the person should have been visible.
Click to expand...

So in your hypothetical protocol sometimes that "clothed lower back" would belong to, say, a mannequin and sometimes to a human being?
 
alleracsum said:
So in your hypothetical protocol sometimes that "clothed lower back" would belong to, say, a mannequin and sometimes to a human being?
Click to expand...
Yes - But also in the IIG “kidney test” only the clothed lower back needed to have been and should have been shown. This would have removed any chance of hot/cold reading clues. And any argument about being put-off by silly hats etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom