Girl with x-ray eyes - Video

[Richard]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...25822374384435

Enjoy

[KingMerv00]

I say we dissect one of her eyes for the good of humanity.

What? She only needs one.

[Stray Cat]

I still haven't got over spending £2.00 on a pair of x-ray spex when I was a kid
Maybe if this girl had a pair of them she'd have got 7 out of 7.
Her missing the metal plate in the guy's head kind of spoke volumes to me.
But at least she put herself up to the test.

[Richard]

See how the other side saw this event.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...kina/X-ray.htm

THE GIRL WITH X-RAY EYES

CSICOP CONVERTS VICTORY INTO DEFEAT

by GUY LYON PLAYFAIR

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Just finished watching the video. I hadn't seen it before. It's good to finally see it after reading some of the threads about it. Thanks, Richard!

[Brainache]

Whoever shot that X-ray eyes story did a great job. The camera work was excellent and the editing was none too shabby either.
I felt kind of sorry for the girl, but maybe if she does study medicine she will be able to see how she has been fooling herself.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Brainache

Whoever shot that X-ray eyes story did a great job. The camera work was excellent and the editing was none too shabby either.
I felt kind of sorry for the girl, but maybe if she does study medicine she will be able to see how she has been fooling herself.

Unless her medicine study only makes it easier for her to fleece people?

Perhaps this is a bit harsh but I can't help thinking that poverty stricken Russia is not the place a qualified doctor can make as much money as a clairvoyant diagnostician would.

As a qualified doctor she would gain more credibility but still using quackery she could do more harm than good... And let's face it, she's good at the quackery already. Imagine if it was backed up with real technical sounding medical jargon, people would fall hook, line and sinker.

[T'ai Chi]

Pretty low probability still, eh?

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

[asthmatic camel]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Pretty low probability still, eh?

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

T'ai Chi, it seems to me that Natasha was given visual clues in both tests which would have given her the opportunity to make a well-informed guess as to the medical complaints of her "patients".

Do you not think it's somewhat suspicious that she took so much longer to make her diagnoses in the second test, and that she failed to pick up the metal plate in the skull?

She's clearly a very clever young lady, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that she has a "gift" for reading the minutiae of facial and bodily reactions of her fellow beings.

Also of interest is her mother's statement that she is never wrong; obviously, this is not the case.

50 to 1 is impressive, but given the above, hardly definitive proof that Natasha possesses psychic powers. Ultimately, who would you trust with your health care? A teenager from Moldovia or a qualified doctor?

I know which way I'd go.

[jimtron]

OMG, take a look at the guy behind her, about 18-20 seconds into the program. He appears to be moving his scalp with PK power. I don't know about Natasha, but this guy's really got the goods!!

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Pretty low probability still, eh?

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

So, if we consider this sufficiently low probability to reject the null, what do we conclude?

[Jeff Corey]

Moose and squirrel must die?

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So, if we consider this sufficiently low probability to reject the null, what do we conclude?

Not much on the basis of that test because very few control measures were put in place to prevent known means of aquiring information about the patients. The thing that always bugs me about these CSICOP and JREF tests is this "preliminary" testing that, as is the case here, gives the so-motivated sceptic the freedom to cast reasonable doubt on a result that may show something interesting and worthy of further study. Very sneaky.

However, if the proper controls were put in place and we got the same result then I would conclude that she had probably aquired accurate information about the patients by some means other than those that were controlled for in the test. Surely that would arouse some interest into finding out what that mechanism is?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So, if we consider this sufficiently low probability to reject the null, what do we conclude?

Hard to say. More, better, tests might be needed.

One can't conclude what Hyman, Skolnik, et al want to.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by asthmatic camel

Do you not think it's somewhat suspicious that she took so much longer to make her diagnoses in the second test, and that she failed to pick up the metal plate in the skull?

Where did she claim to be able to see metal plates?

Quote:

Also of interest is her mother's statement that she is never wrong; obviously, this is not the case.

Again, one should test based on performance, not on what they (quite possibly mistaknegly) believe about their performance.

A good basketball player may say 'I never miss a 3 point shot!', when tested he might make 8 out of 10, which is excellent, but by a naive testing of 100% "claim" he'd fail the test.

Quote:

Ultimately, who would you trust with your health care? A teenager from Moldovia or a qualified doctor?

My current doctor of course. Luckily, my feelings about what I'd choose for healthcare don't have any importance on testing someone's claim, nor should they.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Where did she claim to be able to see metal plates?

She claimed she can see into people, even on a molecular level. If she can see the blood stream and intestinal organs, how on Earth can't she see a metal plate? Why didn't she object when the experiment started?

You need to explain this.

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Again, one should test based on performance, not on what they (quite possibly mistaknegly) believe about their performance.

A good basketball player may say 'I never miss a 3 point shot!', when tested he might make 8 out of 10, which is excellent, but by a naive testing of 100% "claim" he'd fail the test.

Sorry, but we have to go with what people claim. We can't just override what they say.

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

My current doctor of course. Luckily, my feelings about what I'd choose for healthcare don't have any importance on testing someone's claim, nor should they.

No? That's interesting, considering that you have been pointing to the low probability as a reason why there is validity to her performance.

And yet, you won't use her services. You don't practice what you preach.

[T'ai Chi]

What makes you believe that?

[Jeff Corey]

About the same evidence that it would take me to go to a psychic surgeon to remove my hemorhoids.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

What makes you believe that?

She claimed she can see into people, even on a molecular level. If she can see the blood stream and intestinal organs, how on Earth can't she see a metal plate? Why didn't she object when the experiment started?

You need to explain this.

[Jeff Corey]

I'll bet he doesn't.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Pretty low probability still, eh?

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

The key questions are:

1) what does the person claim they can do?
2) what would failure look like?
3) what would an alternative technique look like?

In this case:

1) claims 100% accurate visibility into human body, as if having an x-ray or ct machine in eyes. claims never makes a mistake. makes a living off telling people whether or not they have tumours ranging from microscopic to quite large. charges quite a bit of money for this (one month's salary). Specifically, her literature states: "..can see abnormalities down to the cellular level and that she never ever misses."

2) pass would be 7/7. failure would take the form of missing one or more very obvious missing organs or pieces of skeleton. However, for this demonstration, she was given *extra latitude* and could miss two (5/7) and still 'pass'.

3) an alternative technique would be a) random guesses, b) educated guesses, c) cheating or d) a mix of these. they would score differently, depending on technique, so the 5/7 pass still seems reasonable, as three alternative techniques would be expected to score higher than chance, but only cheating would be expected to get a full score.

She scored 4/7.

It should be noted that Demkina's mother (who is also her public relations manager, is the person who hatched the challenge and contacted the production team via Demkina's agent) originally objected to lowering the standard from 7/7 to 5/7, as it was 'insulting' to imply that her daughter might fail. Off the top of my head, my impression is that she did what a lot of naiive people do when they realize that a 'test' is actually a 'test': she backpedalled and took what she could get, with a backup plan to kvetch after. Demkina is used to doing 'tests' on Russian television that are really 'demonstrations'.


Notice that Scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda purposes does not link to the skeptics' rebuttal of this rumour-mongering: Natasha Demkina, The Girl with Very Normal Eyes




There's a name for making a plan like this. I'm talking about a plan where, if you win, you declare victory, but if you lose, you declare victory by being cheated.

It's called a 'double-cross'.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

I'll bet he doesn't.

And we don't need odds on this one.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

And we don't need odds on this one.

What's sad is that this schmozzle really boils down to conflating two different issues: they failed the challenge, but the challenge was not intended to test for an 'anomaly.' Nobody denies that she did better than chance. Just that this was not the terms of the challenge, so yes, she did fail the challenge. Does she have some kind of ability? Maybe. I think it's worth a test!

If they want to change their claim to something like: "she has some ability to see such-and-such" then hey, apply for the JREF challenge, and the threshold will be negotiated to something everybody will be happy with. Maybe even random chance, who knows? But be prepared for a tighter protocol. (ie: no more peeking at the subjects in advance)

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by blutoski

What's sad is

Actually, what I was starting out to say is that the sad thing is that Wiseman has been ejected from the good graces of the paranormalists. He used to have a much closer relationship with paranormal experimenters, but is now pretty much unable to collaborate.

[Richard]

Let me play the part, if just for a moment, of a real hard skeptic.... You are saying she can see through people's bodies using her x-ray eyes!! Yeah, right. Well, you never know, but come on...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Richard

Let me play the part, if just for a moment, of a real hard skeptic.... You are saying she can see through people's bodies using her x-ray eyes!! Yeah, right. Well, you never know, but come on...

Yeah I know, I know... we owe it to science to test the claims.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

About the same evidence that it would take me to go to a psychic surgeon to remove my hemorhoids.

That's an awful lot of evidence.

[Euromutt]

Please, before posting in this thread, refer to the previous thread on Natasha Demkina, all 62 pages of it. We've seen most of the "arguments" in her favor repeated there ad nauseam already, and they didn't hold up then either.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by blutoski

What's sad is that this schmozzle really boils down to conflating two different issues: they failed the challenge, but the challenge was not intended to test for an 'anomaly.' Nobody denies that she did better than chance. Just that this was not the terms of the challenge, so yes, she did fail the challenge. Does she have some kind of ability? Maybe. I think it's worth a test!

I agree that there are two issues here, as you said. But here's an interesting question:

What is the motivation of CSICOP of the JREF if they are only interested in seeing whether the challenger succeeds or fails according to some arbitrary set of rules? Why are they not interested in any hint of an ability that falls short of passing the test?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by blutoski

1) what does the person claim they can do?

Say I claim I can get 100 calls of a coin right out of 100 trials, and my mom says 'Yeah, T'ai chi can!'.

I 'only' get 85. Therefore I fail the test, declared to have 'no powers' by the organized skeptical movement.

However, my actual performance, 85 out of 100 is incredible, and deserves futher study to see if actual skill or a fluke.

In other words, one should test performance, not perception of performance, becuase of the obvious fact that people like to 'talk up' their abilities, or in general, may be mistaken about their true ability.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by Euromutt

We've seen most of the "arguments" in her favor repeated there ad nauseam already, and they didn't hold up then either.

But then, you wonder why many in the organized skeptical movement got so flustered and aggressive... you know, if there was nothing to these critiques of their arguments and evaluations of the outcome?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

But then, you wonder why many in the organized skeptical movement got so flustered and aggressive... you know, if there was nothing to these critiques of their arguments and evaluations of the outcome?

Who has said that?

[T'ai Chi]

One may believe that... but then one would be missing the boat, so to speak.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

One may believe that... but then one would be missing the boat, so to speak.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Just answer the question, instead of obfuscating.

[T'ai Chi]

Some people are inclined to believe that, apparently.

[CFLarsen]

Believe what??

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

But then, you wonder why many in the organized skeptical movement got so flustered and aggressive... you know, if there was nothing to these critiques of their arguments and evaluations of the outcome?

Apparently you missed Claus' question as well as the proverbial boat. Who got flustered and aggressive?

[T'ai Chi]

Say I claim I can get 100 calls of a coin right out of 100 trials, and my mom says 'Yeah, T'ai chi can!'.

I 'only' get 85. Therefore I fail the test, declared to have 'no powers' by the organized skeptical movement.

However, my actual performance, 85 out of 100 is incredible, and deserves futher study to see if actual skill or a fluke.

In other words, one should test performance, not perception of performance, becuase of the obvious fact that people like to 'talk up' their abilities, or in general, may be mistaken about their true ability.

Wasn't really addressed yet.

[Jeff Corey]

You still haven't answered the question. Specifically, who got "flustered and aggressive"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Say I claim I can get 100 calls of a coin right out of 100 trials, and my mom says 'Yeah, T'ai chi can!'.

I 'only' get 85. Therefore I fail the test, declared to have 'no powers' by the organized skeptical movement.

However, my actual performance, 85 out of 100 is incredible, and deserves futher study to see if actual skill or a fluke.

In other words, one should test performance, not perception of performance, becuase of the obvious fact that people like to 'talk up' their abilities, or in general, may be mistaken about their true ability.

Wasn't really addressed yet.

OK, we'll go with this line of reasoning:

Since Demkina got 4 right, she must obviously be able to see into people. If she couldn't, she would get far less. Correct?

Which means you accept that she has paranormal powers.