Girl with X ray Eyes ( Natasha Demkina )

Sorry. I'll try again.

Usually, a test is useful if failing the test falsifies the idea. It is only somewhat useful if passing the test confirms the idea.

Natasha got stuff wrong in the story in the second link Bat provided ("All Clear This Morning"). But nobody seems to be treating that as an indication that she doesn't have remarkable abilities. So this isn't an example of a useful test, since failing the test doesn't falsify the idea.

Linda

You are certifiably insane.
 
You can get the gist of it from this machine translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www.h5.dion.ne.jp/~hirorin/xlaygirl.htm

It doesn't appear to contain much new information or analysis. It seems to be mainly a summation of the case and what I take to be expressions of incredulity.

i already did that , the translation isn't that good.. this is his conclusion , can anybody tell what is he saying ? positive or still doubtful ?


And have seen so far, my conclusion is, for now, her ability should Kakaru doubt genuine whether enough, is that.As has been said in the program, and is definitely psychics, I think that it is not said to be torn mouth.
Even so, this program, than such too feel comfortable supporting the psychics I think.Also when to introduce the CSICOP, and "ESP scientifically examined to that nominal of the original, many organizations have been denied the psychics", giving the impression that if they were to do something bad .Moreover, as an example of the negative was psychic, and doubt around to raise the "Uri Geller" and "Sai Baba", a survey force of program producers.Program performer, had been reminded as "only by CSICOP", to the famous trick using the Uri Geller has been reproduced in almost all magic, history is the original magician also been exposed .Sai Baba also, when Japan TV teamed featured, (where you have something that solidified ash called Bibuti in the hands) video footage see through the trick has is aired not known to it.
There may be a super ability.I hope if you are I also.However, the easily such TV program to be misleading, it will outraged somewhat.


after googling some more , i have found out that after the test in japan , A guy named Philip Warnell made a documentary about her in 2008 with same title, in which he offered himself as a test subject in front of many viewers

http://www.phillipwarnell.com/x-rayeyes.html

if somebody gets any further info regarding the findings of documentary do mention it
 
Last edited:
You are certifiably insane.
You are misunderstanding something. I'm not trying to say anything anyone would disagree with or find controversial. It's just a feature of the testing process. In fact, you should agree with it, since this is one of the main reasons why failure in many of the MDC trials does not falsify psi.

Linda
 
You are misunderstanding something. I'm not trying to say anything anyone would disagree with or find controversial. It's just a feature of the testing process. In fact, you should agree with it, since this is one of the main reasons why failure in many of the MDC trials does not falsify psi.

Linda
*eye roll* Psi is never falsified. You can however, fail to prove the existence of psi with your test. Not the same thing.
 
*eye roll* Psi is never falsified. You can however, fail to prove the existence of psi with your test. Not the same thing.
I agree it's not the same thing, but I'm not sure why you think it can't be falsified. Or did you just mean "in general", rather than "in this case"?

Linda
 
I agree it's not the same thing, but I'm not sure why you think it can't be falsified. Or did you just mean "in general", rather than "in this case"?

Linda
If you fail to prove the existence of psi with a test, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can you not know this?
 
If you fail to prove the existence of psi with a test, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can you not know this?
Thanks for clarifying.

Yes there is a difference and I agree. I'm talking about performing a test which is a proof of absence (not merely a test which fails to be positive).

Linda
 
Thanks for clarifying.

Yes there is a difference and I agree. I'm talking about performing a test which is a proof of absence (not merely a test which fails to be positive).

Linda

Unless you actively catch someone cheating, this isn't possible. There is always a possibility that psi is there, but evades testing or someone is just having a bad day.
 
Unless you actively catch someone cheating, this isn't possible.

And not necessarily even then? It's often been suggested that genuine mediums have been tempted to cheat when their powers fail them, hasn't it?
 
I think we are talking past each other. There are lots of ways to produce useful results, so I didn't think the interest in her was because she produced useful results, but because it seems like she does so in a way which is remarkable. I was looking at ways we could establish whether it was remarkable and in what way. But now you're saying it has already been established that what she is doing is extraordinary?

Linda
Perhaps we are talking past each other - it wouldn't be the first time!

I know you disagree, but I think people like Wiseman want to bury evidence for paranormal phenomena rather than understand them, or assess them impartially. So given that mindset (or my fevered imagination, if you prefer) you have to ask what tactics they would employ to discredit a case like this.

1) At all costs, don't let the girl do in controlled conditions what drew her to attention.

2) Turn the test into a sort of game - sorting 7 cards into the right order. That way, even if she had scored 100%, the odds are 1 in 7!, which would still leave room for excuses not to believe the outcome. As we have already discussed, this also eliminates the massive improbability that she could really diagnose 7 people by chance. If you remember, that was my mistake above, I'd forgotten the stupid details of this test. Turning the whole thing into a game has another 'advantage' - it may put the girl off completely - after all, when have you, as a doctor, been faced with a situation in which you had to choose which of 2 people had disease X?

Now I would prefer to let her exhibit her ability first in a hospital - much as she was used to. If she didn't do well, that would be the end of the matter, but if she excelled in that situation, the investigation would change from "is she real?" to "how does she do it?". Explaining a phenomenon is a lot harder - but more valuable - than debunking it!

David
 
Turn the test into a sort of game - sorting 7 cards into the right order. That way, even if she had scored 100%, the odds are 1 in 7!, which would still leave room for excuses not to believe the outcome.

To be fair, that is quite a big number. I reckon the probability of getting the desired 5 or more out of 7 would be about 0.44%, while that of getting 4 out of 7 would be about 1.83%, which obviously would normally be considered statistically significant.

Considering that - as Hyman points out - the protocol stated that the idea of the test was to "help to decide whether further studies of Natasha’s claimed abilities are warranted," it's difficult to see how an objective observer could agree that a result with 1.83% probability indicated that further studies weren't warranted, whatever flaws there were in the design and/or execution of the experiment:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_natasha
 
To be fair, that is quite a big number. I reckon the probability of getting the desired 5 or more out of 7 would be about 0.44%, while that of getting 4 out of 7 would be about 1.83%, which obviously would normally be considered statistically significant.

Considering that - as Hyman points out - the protocol stated that the idea of the test was to "help to decide whether further studies of Natasha’s claimed abilities are warranted," it's difficult to see how an objective observer could agree that a result with 1.83% probability indicated that further studies weren't warranted, whatever flaws there were in the design and/or execution of the experiment:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_natasha
Although the test was methodologically flawed I still think it is interesting to get a precise handle on the probabilities involved. It comes down to the fairly simple task of counting permutations that fixes a certain number of elements. So let D(n,k) denote the number of permutations of n elements that fixes k elements. If we let Binom(n,k) denote the binomial coefficient and we have the values of D(k,0) from here, we use D(n,k) = Binom(n,k)*D(n-k,0) to obtain:

D(7,0) = 1854
D(7,1) = 1855
D(7,2) = 924
D(7,3) = 315
D(7,4) = 70
D(7,5) = 21
D(7,6) = 0
D(7,7) = 1

And so if P_k denotes the probability of exactly k hits out of 7, we have P_k = D(7,k)/7!:

P_0 = 1854/7! ≈ 36,79%
P_1 = 1855/7! ≈ 36,79%
P_2 = 924/7! ≈ 18,33%
P_3 = 315/7! ≈ 6,25%
P_4 = 70/7! ≈ 1,39%
P_5 = 21/7! ≈ 0,42%
P_6 = 0/7! ≈ 0,00%
P_7 = 1/7! ≈ 0,02%

The probability of getting 4 or more hits is the probability of getting either 4,5,6 or 7 hits. And since these events are disjoint we can just add their probabilities to get our answer:

P(at least 4 hits) = P_4 + P_5 + P_6 + P_7 = 92/7! ≈ 1,83%.

This is approximately 1 in 55.

It is also interesting to calculate the expected number of hits. So if we weigh the number of hits with their corresponding probability, we get:

Expected #hits = 0*P_0 + 1*P_1 + ... + 7*P_7 = (0*1854 + 1*1855 + 2*924 + 3*315 + 4*70 + 5*21 + 6*0 + 7*1)/7! = 1.

CSICOP required at least 5 hits for a success. The probability of that happening by chance is:

P(at least 5 hits) = P_5 + P_6 + P_7 = 22/7! ≈ 0,44%.

This is approximately 1 in 229.

So Demkina got 4 hits where you would expect 1 hit on average, and that has a 1 in 55 probability of happening by chance. CSICOP considered this a failure since they required a result that has a 1 in 229 probability of happening by chance.
 
And not necessarily even then? It's often been suggested that genuine mediums have been tempted to cheat when their powers fail them, hasn't it?

Yes. There are some relatively famous incidences where mediums known to be legitimate also screwed around and faked some stuff. It's part of the reason why the attitude going into research on this subject has to be very open, inquisitive and persistent as well as requiring excellent attention to detail. Bad experiments get null results in psi research. Worse, they often provide no clues as to what went wrong. It's one reason why the stigma has persisted for so long.
 
Sorry. I'll try again.

Usually, a test is useful if failing the test falsifies the idea. It is only somewhat useful if passing the test confirms the idea.
??? Wow. Where do you come up with these ideas? Popperism is silly enough but you've "monsterized" it. Not to mention that you're treating each part of a test as the test itself. That's not how it works - in any field of study. I mean ??? A test is set-up and the parameters for pass/fail are determined. Depending on what is being tested that mark could even be less than 50%. The primary determinants are making sure the mark is higher than what is thought can reasonably be accounted for by chance and/or experimental error.

Again, I wonder how you can have such a wonky perspective on even the basic assumptions/approaches of materialist science itself.
 
Last edited:
Unless you actively catch someone cheating, this isn't possible. There is always a possibility that psi is there, but evades testing or someone is just having a bad day.

Yes, it's possible. In order to do this, you design the test around whatever the claim is based upon and make sure that the ability is demonstrated during the test, but set it up so that you can distinguish whether this demonstrated ability is psi-like or not. For example, take the claim that a dog anticipates it's owner's return. Find out what behaviour inspired the claim (e.g. the dog barks at the door for several minutes and the owner returns from work or shopping within 10 or 15 minutes). Then run a series of trials which look for this behaviour from the dog, while the owner randomly does or does not return at the set point in time. Make sure the set-up works under non-blind conditions, and then proceed with the blinded testing. If the dog shows the anticipatory behaviour on at least some of the trials, it would be regarded as a successful testing process - the dog showed the 'psi' behaviour. If it turned out that the dog was no more likely to show this behaviour on 'return' trials than on 'no return' trials, it would falsify the idea that the behaviour was psi-like in this case.

In the case of Natasha, it sounds like she reads a person with respect to medical conditions and it is often found that the reading is remarkable. If she demonstrates this ability during the testing - she is able to produce remarkable readings - then it can be said that she demonstrated her 'psi' ability. But if it turns out that these remarkable readings were no more likely to found in the readings for the subjects than in the readings for other subjects, it would falsify the idea that the ability was psi-like.

Linda
 
Yes, it's possible. In order to do this, you design the test around whatever the claim is based upon and make sure that the ability is demonstrated during the test, but set it up so that you can distinguish whether this demonstrated ability is psi-like or not. For example, take the claim that a dog anticipates it's owner's return. Find out what behaviour inspired the claim (e.g. the dog barks at the door for several minutes and the owner returns from work or shopping within 10 or 15 minutes). Then run a series of trials which look for this behaviour from the dog, while the owner randomly does or does not return at the set point in time. Make sure the set-up works under non-blind conditions, and then proceed with the blinded testing. If the dog shows the anticipatory behaviour on at least some of the trials, it would be regarded as a successful testing process - the dog showed the 'psi' behaviour. If it turned out that the dog was no more likely to show this behaviour on 'return' trials than on 'no return' trials, it would falsify the idea that the behaviour was psi-like in this case.

In the case of Natasha, it sounds like she reads a person with respect to medical conditions and it is often found that the reading is remarkable. If she demonstrates this ability during the testing - she is able to produce remarkable readings - then it can be said that she demonstrated her 'psi' ability. But if it turns out that these remarkable readings were no more likely to found in the readings for the subjects than in the readings for other subjects, it would falsify the idea that the ability was psi-like.

Linda

We know from the dog testing that it was successful, but had it not been, all you could have surmised was that either the dog had no psychic ability or that the test failed to demonstrate it. It could very well be that the dog responded differently when it was being filmed or observed in any way. Or, in the case of Wiseman, that nonsensical unnecessary parameters had been set or that the dog had come down with a virus that diminished its psychic ability because it was sick and no one noticed this. Or maybe a new dog moved into the neighborhood and the dog was distracted by it. There are a million reasons why a test can fail that have nothing to do with falsification.

How can you not know this?
 
Perhaps we are talking past each other - it wouldn't be the first time!

I know you disagree, but I think people like Wiseman want to bury evidence for paranormal phenomena rather than understand them, or assess them impartially. So given that mindset (or my fevered imagination, if you prefer) you have to ask what tactics they would employ to discredit a case like this.

This is irrelevant. Like I said, let's approach this from the perspective of how we would go about investigating the case. Worrying about debunking is a waste of time.

Now I would prefer to let her exhibit her ability first in a hospital - much as she was used to. If she didn't do well, that would be the end of the matter, but if she excelled in that situation, the investigation would change from "is she real?" to "how does she do it?".

David

Okay, so it sounds like you and I are on the same page after all. I agree that we start with getting her to show her ability (see my previous post to Craig). Any testing to determine whether she is doing something anomalous depends upon her exhibiting this ability during the testing.

Linda
 
??? Wow. Where do you come up with these ideas?

From stuff like this:

http://stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/KlaymanHa1987.pdf

Popperism is silly enough but you've "monsterized" it. Not to mention that you're treating each part of a test as the test itself.

I'm not, but I agree that the terminology can be confusing. In this case, all the trials considered together are a test of the idea that her abilities are potentially anomalous (i.e. they are distinguishable from a non-anomalous ability).

That's not how it works - in any field of study. I mean ??? A test is set-up and the parameters for pass/fail are determined. Depending on what is being tested that mark could even be less than 50%.

I don't know what you were envisioning for me, but I wasn't suggesting anything different from what you are saying here.

The primary determinants are making sure the mark is higher than what is thought can reasonably be accounted for by chance and/or experimental error.

Again, I wonder how you can have such a wonky perspective on even the basic assumptions/approaches of materialist science itself.

You must have misunderstood. I didn't suggest anything different than what you suggested.

Linda
 
We know from the dog testing that it was successful, but had it not been, all you could have surmised was that either the dog had no psychic ability or that the test failed to demonstrate it. It could very well be that the dog responded differently when it was being filmed or observed in any way. Or, in the case of Wiseman, that nonsensical unnecessary parameters had been set or that the dog had come down with a virus that diminished its psychic ability because it was sick and no one noticed this. Or maybe a new dog moved into the neighborhood and the dog was distracted by it. There are a million reasons why a test can fail that have nothing to do with falsification.

How can you not know this?

Let me try again.

If the dog demonstrated their ability during the testing (and we are all agreed that he did), there would be no reason for you to find excuses for why the testing didn't work, correct?

Linda
 
Back
Top