Vision From Feeling

[Jonquill]

I wouldn't ask if someone was a few days pregnant, most people wouldn't even know if they were, something like 'three months or less' would be better.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

You started this thing. Be an honorable person and see it through. You have asked for time from other people. They deserve to be treated with respect. How would you react if we told you to e-mail us if there are any "important" we should have answered for you and didn't.

Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits with all A's with some of the hardest undergraduate level courses offered? All I said was, that since I am now skimming through the posts of this thread, if I accidentally miss a valuable question, please e-mail it to me since I do check my e-mail so that I can answer the question. Since much of what is posted here are comments or insults as well, don't e-mail me insults since that would be spam and I would block the sender's e-mail address.

You quoted me out of context and failed to answer my questions. You said that all the arrangements were ready. Clearly they are not. There is a very clear pattern of stalling here.

If I were offered to do a study with health forms I would say that I am ready to do it now. Therefore I say that it is ready. I also realize that the study needs to be improved upon, but I say that at its current level I am ready to put it to use while expecting improvements to the procedure as we go along. There is no stalling since I state that I am ready now to have a study. That means that I would have it this very minute. And that does not constitute stalling.

* I told you that you did not need permission from the park. You insisted on getting it anyway. They told you on the phone that it was okay, but you *still* sent them a letter, delaying it even further and increases the chances of them turning you away.

No. They asked me if I could send them some additional information over e-mail, so I did. I wanted to receive specific permission before going into a park and conducting an unconventional study into a paranormal claim. I seriously do not want to break any laws or regulations. Seriously. I will e-mail them once more and ask them to specify whether the study intended is permissible in itself or not, since we really only need very little space.

* It wasn't until Friday that you claimed the park "refused" you when in fact they said it was okay - they just wouldn't reserve open space or let you set up a booth. They flat out told you could reserve pavilion space to do it.

I must receive specific permission that is clearly stated rather than interpreted from what they said. I will not go into a park and conduct the study and then be told that I have broken the rules and regulations and also get the FACT Skeptics in trouble. I am the organizer of this study and I also have to keep in mind those persons that I involve.

* Your skeptics who "expressed interest" haven't even been shown the protocol, much less agreed to it.

They surely have been shown the protocol. I don't have feedback from them as to whether they've agreed to it yet so do not assume one way or the other as we don't know what they'll say.

* As of Friday you claimed to be "all set" yet you haven't even given your assistants a time or place.

All set except for the location. Location includes time and place.

* You haven't even settled on a location, much less scoped it out in regards to the volume of people who come through.

If I would have been given a variety of options for location by the Park and Recreation Department then we could have gone there and selected a location that we think is suitable once we got there.

There was no way it could have happened this weekend. It was, as we all expected, for show.

It is interesting when you state things with seemingly utter belief when they are inaccurate assumptions, Jimmy. There surely was a way it could have happened this weekend. If I had received permission to conduct it in the park it would have happened this weekend one way or the other no exceptions. It was not for show. It was going to happen.

Yes. Use the protocol and questionnaire I wrote back when I was brilliant. Do not alter them. Report the raw data here.

Nope. My questionnaires extract more information from the study. And, it is a study, not a test.

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

No. What I said was that this would be a case of 0% hit and 100% miss.

Ahh, my mistake. That makes things a bit more clear.

You really do need to set down some sort of failure condition if you want the study to have any chance of falsifying the claim though.

I suppose 100% miss is one condition but it can only come up in two cases.

1. The subject has an ailment you do not detect. You have already stated that you won't consider such an event as a miss.

2. You detect a severe (5) ailment in a subject who has marked N for it.

If you simply detect no severe problems during your study, real or otherwise, it will not falsify your ability.

Have you considered what you would expect a person with no paranormal ability to score in your study?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jonquill:

I wouldn't ask if someone was a few days pregnant, most people wouldn't even know if they were, something like 'three months or less' would be better.

Thank you. You are right. This will be implemented on the third version of the study health questionnaire. By the way, let me discuss some of the changes I made from the first version to the second version of the health form.

Pain in "Stomach or intestines" became just pain in "Stomach" after UncaYimmy suggested that no one really knows the definition of intestinal pain and I agree with that.

"Other pain, please write" became "Other pain, please write where" for clarity.

"Fractured bone(s) how long ago" became "Fractured bones how long ago" to look less confusing without the (s). "What bone(s)" became "What bones were they" for clarity. "Remaining discomfort after fracture, describe" became "Is there any remaining discomfort or damage after the fracture, describe" and I might change that again. "Few days" for fracture became "Recent" which is much more appropriate as the option before "Month".

"What surgeries" became "Have you had surgeries, which"

"Lasting discomfort with skeleton" was added and what it means will be better specified in the third edition. It is meant to ask for stiffness or other damage that impairs on bones and movement.

"Hands get cold" and "Feet get cold" became "Hands get cold due to circulation" and "Feet get cold due to circulation" to specify that it isn't simply just because it is cold outdoors in winter!

"Do you smoke" became "Do you smoke (when last)"

"Numbness" became "Numbness, loss of sensation" to better specify what is asked for. "Which body part numb" became "Which body part becomes numb".

"Constipation" and "Diarrhea" were removed entirely because these questions are more of a personal nature. Which frees up even more space on the health questionnaire for other ailments that I might not even have experienced before that should be tested for to see whether I might in fact detect them. For instance although I tested myself with one person who has had their tonsils removed and I didn't detect this, tonsillectomy is still on the health form just to verify that I can or can not detect whether tonsils have been removed.

How nice to see another white bird. ​

Coveredinbeeees:

Have you considered what you would expect a person with no paranormal ability to score in your study?

Brilliant question. Skeptic-4 in my study procedure would fill in health questionnaires along side me and is asked to try any cold reading skill that they can think of as well as guessing or any other techniques that they can think of to try to acchieve a high score by false (ie. non-paranormal) means. That should give *some* idea of what could be done by someone without this paranormal claim. Of course that is not conclusive in any way, but it is a start. In fact we could have the whole room of skeptics all try this with me and we could for instance see whether my answers stand out from the collective of everyone else's answers, how's that?

Well, I will only answer that I detected an ailment when I actually claim to perceive the ailment. If another person does the same but with some attempted cold reading skill and only marks the ailments that they think are there, then I do not expect any other person to answer that they sense removed organs, missing teeth, vasectomy, "objects" in field of vision, tinnitus, in any case for instance. And as for many of the other ailments that in many but not all cases can be difficult to detect just by looking at a person... if I do in fact have some sort of skill I would expect to have a higher frequency of such answers as well, than the persons who answer carefully who only report what they do claim to detect.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits

Yes. I did it while working a full time job. When I struggled to meet my obligations, I didn't make excuses. And I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time rewriting protocols and questionnaires I considered to be brilliant. If I did, I would have stopped when people with experience told me I was doing it wrong. Learn to manage your time.

All I said was, that since I am now skimming through the posts of this

It is disrespectful to ask people to help you and respond by "skimming" through the responses. It's even worse to tell them to wait to see if they have been ignored and demand that they contact you via private e-mail.

don't e-mail me insults since that would be spam and I would block the sender's e-mail address.

How insulting!

If I were offered to do a study with health forms I would say that I am ready to do it now.

Once again you have selectively quoted. Your forms are worthless and will prove nothing. You do not have any assistants committed and willing to work with you.

Your repeated evasions continue to fail.

No. They asked me if I could send them some additional information over e-mail, so I did.

Once again new facts are coming to light. You told us they said it was "ok" over the phone. You never said they requested a letter nor does your letter indicate in any way that you are responding to their request for additional information.

We talked about giving the full story the first time.

I wanted to receive specific permission before going into a park

Do you need another lecture about how repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your argument? It just wastes time.

I must receive specific permission that is clearly stated

The letter says, ""You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described, but we won't reserve open space in a park or allow you to set up a booth in a park."

It is interesting when you state things with seemingly utter belief when they are inaccurate assumptions, Jimmy.

My name is not Jimmy. I do not have inaccurate assumptions. I am pointing out your delusions and/or deceptions.

Nope. My questionnaires extract more information from the study. And, it is a study, not a test.

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. You told us if the "study reveals significant low correlation between the perception of health made by me and that made by the volunteers" it would falsify your claim. And that would mean that the "main objective of this investigation has been reached."

If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does he have? Four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Jonquill]

Also with your discomfort from skeleton question you have nine body parts that people can circle but only one set of 1-5 to circle. What if someone had level 1 pain in the neck but level 5 in the hips?

edit "what it means will be better specified in the third edition" Sorry missed that bit, maybe you are already on to it.


Yes, peacocks and cockatoos are both known for their horrible screams

 

[JWideman]

Volunteer: N Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 3
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 4
Analysis: 20% H

You have GOT to be kidding. You couldn't fail with such a scoring system if you tried.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Here's a rant that ties a number of things together. I just had to get it off my chest.

Not a single person has expressed a belief in her abilities. The only reason anyone wants a study is to prove to her that she has no abilities. Yet how has Anita twisted this?

It has been reduced to a "conceptual" study to see how her abilities work. We're gonna look at the "extent" of an ailment and the time frame, you know, so we can get a better handle what it is she is really doing. Because we know something is there, we're just trying to find out what it is. We're looking for a "rough estimate of what is going on." Of course, the study should be able to falsify her claim. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

In her open letter to FACT she says, "Let's falsify this - if we can!" So how can she get 8 hits from one person? First, she needs to pick 20 ailments and rate them as a 4 out of 5 for extent. As long as the volunteer says "No Ailment" she gets 4 hits (20% * 20). And if the volunteer picks 20 other ailments and rates them as 4, Anita need only say "No ailment detected" to get the other 4 hits (20% * 20). "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She then says it sounds ridiculous and asks what she should do, as if she hasn't already received a "brilliant" protocol or been told a dozen times by Ashles and others to drop the scale completely. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She told us the park people said no and that we "dare" not tell her that she didn't try. But in the published exchange they said yes, just that they wouldn't reserve open space or allow a booth. They explicitly suggested that she reserve a room or pavilion. "Look, I'm trying! I'm being open and honest."

When she is told what the e-mail says, she says, "Are you sure?" and offers to write yet another letter. They already told her, "You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described, but we won't reserve open space in a park or allow you to set up a booth in a park." Once again Anita is saying, "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She made a big stink about not involving her university, yet twice today she has put forth the idea of using students as assistants and/or volunteers. It's not like this hasn't been suggested a dozen times or more. And it's not like she has actually, you know, taken any steps. She just "might" look into it. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She tells us she had made all the arrangements, but then we learn she hasn't confirmed time, location, duration, or protocol with any of her assistants. And this was just one day before her big study was supposed to happen. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She was told repeatedly that she should do the study with the skeptics group. You remember, the one run by the guy who actually printed out the forms I created and brought them to not one, but two meetings that Anita attended. She blamed the lack of testing on them not making time, but now she's asking them to hold a special meeting just for her to review her protocol and questionnaire. This is after I told her that the more she sees and talks to these people, the less viable they are as candidates because they violate the no seeing and no talking rules. I guess she needs them because all of our suggestions suck. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

After her tantrum, she's acting all nice and giddy. She's calling people brilliant and throwing around smililes and virtual hugs. The manipulation is so transparent.

The reason she is happy is that she successfully avoided any real testing. The reason she got all worked up last week was because she painted herself in to a corner by claiming the test was really going to happen. And then she realized what she had done. So what did she do? She added the scale and time frames so there was no possible way to falsify her claim. And then she tried to make sure that the park administrators would say no. When that didn't work, she just pretended they said no. In her back pocket she had the fact that she hadn't actually confirmed that she had four assistants in her pool of six skeptics who expressed interest, much less that they were available.

Did she think we wouldn't notice? Does she think we're that dumb? Have we seen this before?

Remember back when she was all pumped about doing chemical identification tests? You know, the ones where she was told which was which after each trial with the uncovered cups? When she introduced proper controls (well, except the on about checking her guesses after each trial), she started failing. So in one sitting she removed control after control (number of cups, covers, wetting just the target) until it looked like she was doing okay. Then she stopped because it made her feel sick, but she said she wanted to try further tests. She never did because we found out later it always made her feel sick. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She was all gung ho about testing people with photographs and videos. When she finally had people to test, she failed. Then she quit doing it altogether because that wasn't her main claim. She want to concentrate on diagnosing people in person. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

When she agreed to test the crushed pills, she made a last minute request (you gotta love this) to get intact samples for comparison. She didn't. She's now spent two hours staring at them (I thought chemical identification made her sick) with zero results posted. But she'll get back to it. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

Oh, yeh! What about her survey? You know, the one at the mall where she tried to figure out what she could detect in strangers. She's gonna type up those results...eventually. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She's spent over a year with the IIG, who "bless them," have been trying to find a way to test her. It had nothing to do with her not actually having any real claim. They finally said in effect, "Look, when you can say what it is you can do, come talk to us. Do whatever you have to do to figure it out, but this test is dead in the water." That, of course, means they are encouraging her in conducting her study. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

And where are we now, 2,000 post later? "I consider the [not my?] paranormal claim to be falsified if the study reveals significant low correlation [I have to really suck at it] between the perception of health made by me and that made by the volunteers. I don't quite know what that would look like..." If she can do that, then the "main objective of this investigation has been reached."

So, please, everyone, let's continue to help her. Look at her! She's really trying.

 

[Jonquill]

I thought it was kind of obvious that you couldn't announce on Friday that you are going to do a test in a park on Sunday and expect four helpers to be available at such short notice with the equipment needed (folding chairs and tables, pens etc). Especially since I think she said she doesn't drive and would have to rely on others to transport those things.
But maybe Anita doesn't think of practicalities like that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, on your website it says, "For instance if the study reveals that I detect a certain condition 33% of the time, and a test requires me to identify the condition 10 times, then we would need at least 30 persons with the condition for the test."

That's not at all how it would work. I challenge you to find the flaws with that I have quoted, you know, since you're a straight A student and all. Hint: It involves statistics. You don't need the proper formulas, just use words to describe what the formula(s) would tell you.

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!eleven!

- Sir Walter Scott


ETA: And no, I'm not going to explain !!eleventy! Get your head out of your Arcturus and do something about your naivity before it harms you any further.

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

Skeptic-4 in my study procedure would fill in health questionnaires along side me and is asked to try any cold reading skill that they can think of as well as guessing or any other techniques that they can think of to try to acchieve a high score by false (ie. non-paranormal) means. That should give *some* idea of what could be done by someone without this paranormal claim. Of course that is not conclusive in any way, but it is a start. In fact we could have the whole room of skeptics all try this with me and we could for instance see whether my answers stand out from the collective of everyone else's answers, how's that?

Having a large number of sceptics trying alongside you sounds like a good way to find a base against which to compare your own results. The question remains, to what extent would your results need to deviate from those of the sceptic group in order for you to consider further study worthwhile?

Would you accept your "score" falling within the range obtained by a group of sceptics as evidence of no paranormal ability on your part?

How would you incorporate such a control group into your study?

It is late so I hope you'll excuse me not going back through the thread to check, but I believe you mentioned a special meeting of your sceptic group happening for part of your study. If so you should consider asking some of the members to bring friends who can act as the subjects of the study while you and the group of sceptics act as viewers.

My concern is that using sceptics from the group as subjects would be complicated due to the viewers and subjects having associated in the past. Presumably everyone knows who had flu last month or an operation last year and the like, within the group.

That aside it is still a good idea to decide, before the study, how the results will be interpreted. Otherwise you leave yourself open to the construction and pursuit of a study which ultimately tells you nothing.

Well, I will only answer that I detected an ailment when I actually claim to perceive the ailment. If another person does the same but with some attempted cold reading skill and only marks the ailments that they think are there, then I do not expect any other person to answer that they sense removed organs, missing teeth, vasectomy, "objects" in field of vision, tinnitus, in any case for instance. And as for many of the other ailments that in many but not all cases can be difficult to detect just by looking at a person... if I do in fact have some sort of skill I would expect to have a higher frequency of such answers as well, than the persons who answer carefully who only report what they do claim to detect.

What are your thoughts on this?

I am not sure what you mean by higher frequency above. Do you mean to say that you expect to mark down more ailments for a given subject than the average sceptic in a group reading?

I would expect a sceptic taking part in this would be duty bound to play the odds and mark ailments they would expect the subject to have based on age and gender even if they can't tell for sure that they are present.

In any event I expect that the frequency of answers is less of a factor than the accuracy of answers.

 

[Akhenaten]

What *specifically* did you tell them and what *specifically* did they say in response? I posted a link to the park regulations. There is nothing there that says you cannot do it. Nothing. You said the person on the phone said that it seemed to be okay. Why did you even send the letter in the first place?

Good questions and I hope to receive some input from the others as well as to whether I maybe could have presented it differently or perhaps designed the study differently in order to better obtain permission for a location. Phew, I just typed up a lot of recent material, here is a link to a page where I post the e-mail correspondence between me and Park and Recreation. That way you can see what was said rather than read my description of it. This should answer your question of "what *specifically* did they say in response?". I sent them the letter and written material since I was asked to provide a more detailed description of what was intended with the study.

*Note that I made the e-mail correspondence available only by assuming that the replies from Park and Recreation represent the opinions of a governmental department and not personal opinions of an individual and that therefore it should be possible to make it available.

Alleged Correspondence - Part 1

Arranging a location for the Study
local Park and Recreation Department
written January 31 2009 by Anita Ikonen​

This document posts the e-mail correspondence¹ that took place between paranormal claimant² Anita Ikonen and an employee of the local Park and Recreation Department.³ I have decided to make this material available since I think that the conduction⁴ of a paranormal investigation is a rare occurrence⁵ and can be educational for those who are interested in science, pseudoscience⁶ and paranormal claims. Since I assume the opinions⁷ of the employee of Park and Recreation to represent the ideals of that governmental department and not be of a personal nature I have decided to post our correspondence here without asking for permission from this employee or from Park and Recreation.⁸ This first e-mail on Thursday January 29 2009⁹ was sent by me following a phone conversation with the Park and Recreation inquiring about having the study in a public park.¹⁰​

​

​

Notes:

1. Since we all appear to be connected to the internet, we don't need to create transcripts of emails in order to divulge their contents. There is technology available which allows us to simply forward complete emails to multiple recipients. Perhaps you don't have any skeptics email addresses? Here's mine:

david@yvonneclaireadams.com

Give it a try.


2. You seem to be settling into this title, but it sucks. How about "Vibrationalist"?


3. That would be Mecklenburg Park and Recreation Department, for any that may be curious.


4. It's "conduct". Conduction is something that physics students might learn about in regard to electricity. Maybe.


5. You are subscribed to four skeptical forums/groups that I know of, as well as your contact with Leon E. Curry, M.D How do you come by a belief that paranormal investigations are a rare occurrence?


6. People given to speculating about such things might refer to the inclusion of pseudoscience as a Freudian Slip on your part. I don't know enough myself to say for sure.


7. You weren't after, and I doubt that you received, an "opinion". I find it far more likely that you received a decision based on current regulations. All shall be revealed in Upcoming episodes, I'm sure.


8. Ofuscatus Verbiosis, or the Common Prattle, as it is often referred to.


9. 48 hours notice???!eleven!¹¹

10. If this correspondence is being published in the interest of scientifical accuracy, it should be complete. Telephone conversations DO need to be transcribed, although not necessarily verbatim, and that would have been a more logical starting place.


11. Look, there it is again



More to follow, over.

 

[Akhenaten]

ETA: On the other hand, being a scientist science student, I would never engage any of my friends as participants in the study as this is (intended as) a scientific investigation. If there were a shortage of participants I would then perhaps approach my own university or other universities and engage students of science, psychology, or something else that is relevant and who I am not acquainted with. That is one option of hopefully credible participants, and they might enjoy the exercise of a paranormal investigation.

Akhenaten:
I would actually feel comfortable doing the study at my uni, however the college students are very healthy young people. If I could choose any place in the world for the study it would be at a hospital entrance or the entrance to Walgreens.

I'll have to re-read the thread now, because I appear to have missed a development somewhere.

 

[Asm]

Hi Anita,

Just out of curiosity,

When you started this thread you seemed convinced that you had paranormal abilities. Now, a couple of thousand posts later, are you:

a) Still just as convinced?
b) Less convinced?

And secondly, the possibility that you might be suffering from a mild delusion has been suggested several times. People don't do that to be rude, but to help you. How do you react to those suggestions, do you think:

a) "I know I am not deluded"?
b) "There might be something to it"?

If you don't want to answer, that's okay. But if you do, please try to keep it simple, a) or b).

Hugs.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
It is difficult to say at this point what kind of study results would conclude that there is no ability of accurately perceiving health information. Keep in mind that even if I appear to have an ability of accurately perceiving health information this might be a subconscious skill of cold reading, so don't you skeptics panic if this investigation shows that there is interesting accuracy.

We're not worried. As far as we are concerned, so far nothing happening here is unexpected to us.
I don't think cold reading is going to come into play here to any significant degree.
Anyway this study is agreed to be not particularly indicative of evidence towards a paranormal ability by your own agreement.

I have not been verified incorrect a single time yet so I don't know.

Everyone else disagrees with you on this point hence the need to agree parameters.

Is it ridiculous to say "let's just wait and see what happens?"

In any experiment that purports to be run scientifically... yes.

Perhaps I should discuss this with Dr. Eric Carlson. He is a brilliant scientist and perhaps it is something I as the claimant am unable to decide on myself.

What difference does that make? You declared UncaYimmy a "brilliant skeptic" yet you still refused to use his protocol. He may will give you excellent advice but if, as you have continually done, you ignore it then what is the point of asking?

It is a difficult question, Ashles! Do you have a suggestion? Please suggest?

I do have a suggestion. Please run this by Eric Carlson if necessary.

This stage of analysis is to solely to mark the results and falsify the likelihood of any ability (paranormal or cold reading):

You have stated yourelf you consider a score of 2 to be "insignificant" and "not really an answer" so we will accept your definition of this for this analysis.

Thus we will ignore ANY instances in which you have marked N, 1 or 2, NO MATTER WHAT the volunteer has put.
This is sensible for 2 reasons - Firstly it removes all the instances where you see no ailment - This is not at this stage a sensible measure of your ability because it is the default position that anyone would have i.e. no ability present.
The majority of correct results (which anyone could get by putting N to everything) would be No ailment detected, No ailment present. So we remove them (at this stage) as not useful.
Also it helps you because if you write down N and the subject actually puts a 5 (or anything indicating an ailment) it will still not be counted.
We are considering such results as ailments you are unable to identify which was one of the goals of this study.

So ths leaves us with your relatively strong results: 3, 4, 5.
(Remember this is all only for reaching a conclusion of Non-Ability - we are not using this for anything else).

We will look at your results marked 3, 4 or 5 and mark only those.
Anything that you mark a 3 and the volunteer marks as a 1 will be deemed Undetermined. We will also discard these results.

So if you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the Volunteer puts down 2, 3, 4, or 5 we will, for the purposes of this, consider those Hits.
If you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the volunteer puts down a N we will consider this a Miss.

Now bear in mind such a method of marking is very skewed in your favour.

Taking such results I would personally say that a ratio of Misses to Hits of less than 1:5 would be enough to indicate a Non-Ability.

I think that is very fair as, bearing in mind the extraordinary level of accuracy you have so far claimed, and the amazing level of detail and range you claim your 'ability' to have, you should, even on a bad day, be ble to perform far above that.
And your scores of 3, 4 or 5 should be considered that you definitely feel you are perceiving something with your ability.

Please take that to Dr Carlson. And comments obviously from all other posters here are welcome.

Bear in mind this is not the part of the analysis designed to analyse relative ailment detection strength - I will get to that later.

Also bear in mind you are refusing to use ANY test protocol we are suggesting so we are making these comments about YOUR test protocol which you already agree is flawed.

Now I am convinced your instant reaction on reading that is to reject it. Already you are thinking of how it can be modified, how can we remove the word 'Miss' from it, how can you generate an argument to disagree with the assumptions made...
But I would ask you to pause a moment and really think about why you are instantly rejecting it.

If you feel my suggested ratio is incorrect, say so - suggest one of your own.
If you have improvements, be specific.
If you reject it completely, have a falsification scenario of your own to replace it with.

But, in all fairness, I see absolutely no reason why you would not accept this method of judging as a fair indicator of no-ability.
It is very much in your favour and far more generous than a real test will be.

Even with the detailed permutation list I gave you and a chance to define reults as Hits or Misses, you still redefined everything as a percentage chance of a Hit. Misses as a concept were totally removed.

As a science student it is genuinely bafling to me that after three years you cannot formulate a falsification scenario from this test.
If you reject mine you must come up with something yourself - otherwise you must remove that stated goal from the list of objectives.
If you refuse all of our suggestions and can't come up with any of your own it simply will not be a test that has any chance of falsifying any claim.

You just cannot in any even vaguely scientific test, decide to come up with a falsification scenario after you get the results.

 

[Ashles]

I resent that. I will be a brilliant scientist

A little tip - writing like that is a little embarassing for you. You cannot tell people you will be a brilliant scientist, you have to behave in ways that convince them of that. You currently have not.

and the fact that I've conducted a scientific investigation into an interesting experience, even if an unconventional subject, does not take away from my skills as a scientist.

The fact that you have not in any way used proper scientific rigour, have not created a workable protocol, have actively refused to use tight protocols and have replaced them with inferior ones, have broken your own protocols, ignored undesirable results, have no method of data analysis, and cannot so far come up with a method of falsification...those take away from your "skills as a scientist".

Besides I am one of those few who actually want to touch unconventional research topics.

There are thousands of amateurs who unscientifically look at exciting and paranormal topics. None of them have ever come up with anything. You are certainly not part of a 'few' there.

Actual scientists (those with degrees, research papers, some experience of their subject, peer review, respect etc.) are much thinner on the ground in this area because it has already been so extensively and fruitlessly researched.
I'll leave it to others to exaplain the story behind Mr. Emoto (which, yes, we are long aware of)

Most scientists and science students I spoke to about Mr. Emoto's claim were appalled by such an unconventional and "clearly nonsensical" claim without really being certain that the claim would be false, whereas I am willing to spend some of my time as a scientist to actually show that such a claim is not possible and to then perhaps come up with a reason as to why before concluding about it.

Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,[3] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. [4] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings. [5]
In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.[6] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[7] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[8]

Interesting that your first instinct to get backup for your scientific position is to go to another non-scientist who makes paranormal claims who also leaves his experiments open to interpretation.
As a scientist you should moving away from such clealry inconclusive research and towards stricter scientific protocols.

In my teens I was interested in some of the concepts of New Age or "pseudoscience" and am now getting a real education in conventional science. Some pseudoscientific claims are not touched by scientists.

Like what?

I intend to be one of the brave scientists who is willing to put her reputation in line to look into unconventional claims or hypotheses that relate to my field of study.

And yet you have the opportunity to start that brave stance even as a student, yet constantly shy away from it by refusing to run tests at your own Uni?
In fact this directly contradicts your earlier claims that you don't want asociation with the paranormal to endanger your career..

If a woo comes up with some strange claims about some electronic instrument or healing powers then I can be one to objectively consider their claim

Unfortunately not based on current evidence.
Some of the worst work in these fields have been caried out when individuals claiming paranormal ability have been 'tested' by those who also want to believe.

and perhaps even devote some of my own spare time and resources to find a way to prove and explain why their claims are flawed.

But so far you can't fix the flaws you identify in your own studies!

[uote]If my involvement in this seems to hurt my reputation to some, then so be it.[/quote]
This is again a different stance from before.

I think it strengthens me as a scientist,

I hate to have to remind you again but, you are not a scientist.

and strengthens science as a whole. Why simply tell a paranormal claimant that they are wrong, when it is possible to look into it, to dedicate some of your time and expertise, and show them why it doesn't work? I will be one of those persons.

We already are those persons.
We always encourage experimentation to look into it.
But the clamant has to take some responsibility and be open to the idea of being incorrect.

I seriously doubt that this paranormal investigation would hurt my reputation or career. This is an interesting exercise of the scientific method on a high school- or undergraduate level. I might even put it on my resume. And who knows, after I falsify my claim I might turn into a skeptic who tests paranormal claimants and claims, and that is something to put on a resume.

To be honest, at the moment all the work being done to actually generate a strict protocol and any falsification methodology ought to be going on our CVs not yours.

Please, please work on developing a decent and agreed protocol before going off on these flights of fancy about how you will become one of the world's leading paranormal investigators. All that talk simply detracts from your credibility.
You want us to concentrate on talking about the study - you should too.

It seems like you are taking this study and 'ability' to be already assumed and simply the first stepping stone onto an inevitable and exciting career.
But that first stepping stone may not really be there.

 

[Moochie]

Anita, I don't understand how to fill out your form when it comes to the time periods.

I am nauseous right now.

<snip>

Was it something you read?


M.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
Is that like a response-nonsense?
Well, if I make a single one particular claimed perception that strongly disagrees with the verified health of a person then that alone is reason to make me doubt the claim. If I make several inaccurate perceptions then each would add to my doubts and eventually I would realize that there is no ability.

We don't like 'eventually'.
'Eventually' is when the mall survey will be detailed. 'Eventually' as not a word we want in scientific protocols.
We need numbers.

I really need someone else to define when the claim would be falsified by the study, as I have no clear answer.

You say that but if anyone else suggests it you will reject it.
Define it yourself.

All I know is that the study should be able to falsify a non-ability whether I have a clear idea of what that would require, or not. *unscientific*

The study simply cannot. It must be defined beforhand.
Otherwise we end up with another interpretation disagreement.
All appearances indicate you are incapable of falsifying your own ability.

The only way you can alter that perception is by coming up with your own or accepting someone else's (e.g. mine above)

I just don't know at this point. I really need to discuss this with others.

Out of interest who? Do you accept their suggestios?

 

[skeen]

It's hilarious how drawn out testing has become. In the beginning of this thread, it seemed like a simple ability - she can see through people, better than an x-ray. Now Anita is hoping to use probability and chance to her advantage.

A proper test is never going to happen. Even if we get to a point where Anita has agreed to do as we have suggested, she will change it when the test is to take place. She has already done this, deeming the entire process useless.

And Anita, don't use the term "scientist" to describe yourself, even if you're going to cross it out. You are the least Scientific person I have ever come across. Just because you take a class, and memorize things, doesn't make you a Scientist. You are an irrational woo, the exact opposite of a Scientist. Thank you.