The girl with the x-ray eyes

solas

ph wrote:

The $1,000,000 is very real, and now most challenge applications and the process by which both the challenger and JREF agree on the test criteria are posted on the forum attached to the site.

to qquote someone else who said it better than I could

Well, to do a James Randi style evaluation of evolution, the experiment would look something like

Take 5 bowls of primordial soup.
You will be told what each bowl will have to evolve into, and the conditions will be set by the skeptics.
You need 4 out of 5 bowls to evolve exactly into what is specified.
If this doesn't happen, evolution is fraudulent and you are lying.

Now, given that we have pretty good observational evidence for evolution, there is still no way we could pass that test. Does that mean that evolution is wrong?

If you haven't seen it before, look up a documentary called "the girl with the x-ray eyes" for another example. She submitted to skeptics testing, let them set the experimental criteria and so on. In one of the last tests, she had to match 7 diagnosis to 7 patients. She was given the diagnosis list and right from the start she said she would not be able to identify one of them (someone who had a metal windpipe), and that she wasn't too happy with a couple of the others are they were relating to scarring from previous illnesses rather than illnesses now, as these could prove harder to identify.

The skeptics insisted the test was fine.

The target she had was to diagnose 5 out of 7 correctly. She had already stated she wasn't sure she could diagnose 3 of the conditions laid out as they didn't fit with her descriptions of her apparent abilities (Basically diagnosing illnesses/injuries directly affecting the patient now). She got 4 out of 7.... Guess which ones she got mixed up?

Following this, the skeptics claimed it was an entirely fair test and pronounced her a fraud.

Is that honest science?

pH

solas wrote:

to qquote someone else who said it better than I could
Quote:
Well, to do a James Randi style evaluation of evolution, the experiment would look something like

Take 5 bowls of primordial soup.
You will be told what each bowl will have to evolve into, and the conditions will be set by the skeptics.
You need 4 out of 5 bowls to evolve exactly into what is specified.
If this doesn't happen, evolution is fraudulent and you are lying.

Now, given that we have pretty good observational evidence for evolution, there is still no way we could pass that test. Does that mean that evolution is wrong?

I fail to see how this explains anything. It confuses evolution with abiogenesis and I know no-one who claims that if you leave 5 bowls of primordial soup on a table life should evolve in them.

An experiment with 5 planets and 5 billion years might be a valid test, though it may just prove that the creation of a self-replicating molecule is an extremely rare occurence (although current speculation is that it isn't!)

On the other hand Natasha Demkina *claims* she can see into human bodies and diagnose illness.

solas wrote:

If you haven't seen it before, look up a documentary called "the girl with the x-ray eyes" for another example. She submitted to skeptics testing, let them set the experimental criteria and so on. In one of the last tests, she had to match 7 diagnosis to 7 patients. She was given the diagnosis list and right from the start she said she would not be able to identify one of them (someone who had a metal windpipe), and that she wasn't too happy with a couple of the others are they were relating to scarring from previous illnesses rather than illnesses now, as these could prove harder to identify.

The skeptics insisted the test was fine.

Not sure about the metal windpipe!

Demkina's supporters are accusing the investigators of changing the test rules at the last moment, to make the young psychic fail. Not true, say the investigators. All the test rules were provided in writing to the program's director/producer and to Demkina five days before the test was conducted. "Only after everyone agreed to the written protocols did we agree to travel to New York City to meet with Ms. Demkina and conduct the test," Skolnick says. (See http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/demkina.protocols.doc.)

No test rules were changed other than ones that Demkina requested, he adds. For example, Demkina was allowed to talk to her teenage friend throughout the test so she would feel more comfortable, even though that was forbidden by the rules.


It's worth noting that "X-Rays" required a strong X-Ray source being passed through a body. The film merely detects the x-rays from the source.

If her claims are true then most of modern physics needs rewriting, which is more likely - she's got a knack for cold-reading and guessing peoples medical problems or that she's living proof that everything we know about physics is wrong?

solas

ph wrote:

I fail to see how this explains anything.

I'm not in anyway suprised that you missed the analogy.

An experiment with 5 planets and 5 billion years might be a valid test, though it may just prove that the creation of a self-replicating molecule is an extremely rare occurence

perhaps you should inform Mr Randi of you discovery. He might offer you $1,000,000

It's worth noting that "X-Rays" required a strong X-Ray source being passed through a body. The film merely detects the x-rays from the source.

the term x-ray eyes is a reference to her abilty to detect illness by looking at the person, it does not suppose she possesses the mechanics of an x-ray machine, or the radiation required to operate it.

she's got a knack for cold-reading and guessing peoples medical problems

I suggest you research her history in relation to her abilities.
I watched the dcoumentary on this program, it was on channel four a few months ago. She went through several tests, she passed the first two rounds without question and was "failed" on the last. Her abilities were to recognise current illness in the body, not to diagnose previous illness.
of all of the test subjects there was no visible evidence available to her.
Randi screwed her over.

or that she's living proof that everything we know about physics is wrong?

If it is genuine, it does not then lead to thinking that "everything we know about physics is wrong" it merely shows that physics does not provide an equation for everything.
This "if your not with me your against me" attitude serves no one.

If you want to discuss this in detail from a skeptical point of view, I can copy and move this part of the thread over to the skeptics forum.

pH

the term x-ray eyes is a reference to her abilty to detect illness by looking at the person, it does not suppose she possesses the mechanics of an x-ray machine, or the radiation required to operate it.

It would however need some form of energy/wave passing *through* the subject but capable of being focused by her cornea and a image captured on her retina.

Given our undestanding of the electromagnetic spectrum no such wave/particle exists, nor has any of her supporters made any attempt define it. Waves that pass through humans (such as radio waves) have a wavelength too long to resolve detail in a human body.

(someone who had a metal windpipe)

Where are you getting this information from. I'm not sure that anyone on this planet has a metal windpipe, let alone one of the subjects in the test.

Randi screwed her over.

I'm sorry but what has Jame Randi to do with this?

I suggest you research her history in relation to her abilities.

This process is similar to the "cold readings" used by astrologers and other psychics, Hyman says. With so many guesses, she's likely to get a hit -- which will be touted -- while the misses are explained away or simply ignored. There's simply no way to prove such readings right or wrong without controlling for all the tricks that psychics are known to use. In addition, by observing their subjects' reactions, psychics pick up clues to guide the rest of their comments. The result is that most subjects come away swearing the psychic was amazingly accurate.

Her abilities were to recognise current illness in the body, not to diagnose previous illness.

Clearly she claimed to be able to see inside human bodies, this is how she does her diagnoses as opposed to say viewing auras or some other means.

The test showed that she couldn't prove the claim (seeing inside bodies) in a controlled environment. If she now changes what she claims, so that now she is able to diagnose illness through some other means (other than seeing into the body) and wishes to prove it then maybe another test should be conducted.

robindch

> I suggest you research her history in relation to
> her abilities. I watched the dcoumentary on this
> program, it was on channel four a few months ago.

The same documentary is shown fairly regularly on Discovery channel.

> She went through several tests

The nature of the tests was agreed with Natasha beforehand, as were the criteria for success. Her mother claims 100% success rate, but Natasha only had to hit 70% for the next stage of testing to occur.

> Her abilities were to recognise current illness
> in the body, not to diagnose previous illness.

She claims to be able to see through cloth and see illness right down to the cellular level. In the tests, amongst other failures, she didn't notice a heavy metal plate in the head of one of the test subjects. This rather suggests that her claims are, at best, exaggerated.

> of all of the test subjects there was no
> visible evidence available to her.

Acutally, there was indirect evidence:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/natasha.html

> Randi screwed her over.

James Randi was not involved in this test. Andrew Skolnick and Richard Wiseman were.

You can read the full report on the test protocol and the test results at:

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/demkina.html

ISAW

pH wrote:

It would however need some form of energy/wave passing *through* the subject but capable of being focused by her cornea and a image captured on her retina.

Given our undestanding of the electromagnetic spectrum no such wave/particle exists, nor has any of her supporters made any attempt define it. Waves that pass through humans (such as radio waves) have a wavelength too long to resolve detail in a human body.

I think it is important to distinguish two things here.

1. Paranormal or psychic abilities.
2. The underlying mechanism or explanation for such.

The "x-ray" girl failed on both counts.

But take acupuncture for example. I know it is difficult if not impossible to provide a double blind test so 1. may be difficult to disprove.

I do not think that there is evidence "chi energy" or any such unknown mechanism as providing evidence for how acpuncture works if it does.

The test showed that she couldn't prove the claim (seeing inside bodies) in a controlled environment. If she now changes what she claims, so that now she is able to diagnose illness through some other means (other than seeing into the body) and wishes to prove it then maybe another test should be conducted.

I think it is for the OP to show how she got 4 out of seven cases correct. If so I am interested in this case. If under test conditions she continually gets four out of seven right with unknown people then I would be surprised.

robindch

> I think it is for the OP to show how she got 4 out of seven
> cases correct. If so I am interested in this case. If under
> test conditions she continually gets four out of seven right
> with unknown people then I would be surprised.

Read the report which I linked to above which explains why she might have managed this high figure.

Personally, I think the test protocol was unduly lenient, but she probably wouldn't have signed on the dotted line if it was any more difficult.

In the end, she made a claim that she couldn't back up.

btw, right at the end of the documentary, does anybody remember that russian journo grumbling that that "People like Natasha should not be tested"? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Personally, I think the test protocol was unduly lenient, but she probably wouldn't have signed on the dotted line if it was any more difficult.

Agreed. The entire test seems to be nullified by the fact that she can talk to the people, and that they can hear her

She seems to use the classic cold reading technic of mentioning something non-specific and gauging reaction to this. Then she can hone in on that persons reaction to make a specific guess. People have been doing this for hundreds of years. Darren Brown makes a living out of it, though he never claims it is paranormal, simply psychology.

She also doesn't seem to be very good at it, though i guess she only is 17.

For a proper test to see if she can actually see into people bodies the following should have been done

- The 7 or so "patients" should not be aware of what they are taking part in, or have any idea it relates to medical issues.

- Neither Natasha nor any of her family or friends should have any knowledge of the 7 patients or be allowed to meet them before hand.

- The 7 should be in a double mirror room (like in a police station) alone. The double mirror ensures Natasha can see them but they cannot see her or even be aware she is there. None on else should have access to the patients or the patient room, especially friends or relatives of Natasha.

- Natasha should be in the room on the other side of the mirror on her own. No one should be able to communicate anything verbally to her once the test has started, and no one but the 7 patients should be allowed enter the patient room in case someone else communicates something visual to her. Ideally the room Natasha is in should be sound proof.

- If a translator needs to be there he should be independent and be outside of the room listening to Natasha on a microphone. He should not be able to communicate back to Natasha.

- During the test what Natasha is saying should not be broadcast to either the patients or to her family or friends.

- When the test is over none of the 7 patients should be allowed come into contact with Natasha, her friends or family until they have been tested.

- Afterwards the patients should be examined by independent doctors for specifically what Natasha claimed to have seen and at no point should the patients be told what Natasha claimed they had to avoid the hypocondrac (sp?) effect mentioned in the article.

If she successfully diagnosed all 7 patients under these conditions I would be impressed.

As it stand she seems to be a pretty poor cold reader.

pH

She seems to use the classic cold reading technic of mentioning something non-specific and gauging reaction to this. Then she can hone in on that persons reaction to make a specific guess. People have been doing this for hundreds of years. Darren Brown makes a living out of it, though he never claims it is paranormal, simply psychology.

While DB might perhaps once have demonstrated cold reading (and even then I'm not sure) he certainly does not make a living out of it. Derren Brown is a mentalist (a magician like Paul Daniels). Sorry to tell you this but his effects rely on fairly standard misdirection rather than psychology (unless you lump all "magical misdirection" into pyschology anyway).

Zombrex

pH wrote:

While DB might perhaps once have demonstrated cold reading (and even then I'm not sure) he certainly does not make a living out of it. Derren Brown is a mentalist (a magician like Paul Daniels).

Funny my sister calls me a "mentalist", though I think her meaning and yours are slightly different

pH wrote:

Sorry to tell you this but his effects rely on fairly standard misdirection rather than psychology (unless you lump all "magical misdirection" into pyschology anyway).

Not to get into a big argument about this, but DBs mis-direction "magic" is only one part of his acts

He has done a lot of stuff in his recent shows on Channel 4 that deals with psychological effects. The one where he got the woman to fall over by simply telling her her arms were heavy was particularly impressive (though made the woman seem like a bit of an eejit)

He did a cold reading "trick" where he figured out where people lived in London just by looking at them (least I think that was DB)

He does quite a bit of cold reading, on his TV show anyway. Very little of his recent stuff is Paul Daniels style slight of hand and mis-direction traditional magic.

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/subtle/clairvoyance.html

pH

Not to get into a big argument about this, but DBs mis-direction "magic" is only one part of his acts

He has done a lot of stuff in his recent shows on Channel 4 that deals with psychological effects. The one where he got the woman to fall over by simply telling her her arms were heavy was particularly impressive (though made the woman seem like a bit of an eejit)

No, no and thrice no! He's a magician, they are tricks and while he does have one or 2 psychological demonstrations in his shows, his effects are pure trickery and misdirection. There is no psychology involved.

He did a cold reading "trick" where he figured out where people lived in London just by looking at them (least I think that was DB)

I mean this in the nicest possible way but did you know that the word Gullible isn't in the Oxford English dictionary

I'm amazed at how many sensible and otherwise "skeptical" people get take in by both Derren's effects and Hypnotism.

He takes known tricks and wraps them up in a 'psychological' explanation that viewers like because they feel they are somehow 'in' on how the trick is achieved. He does this because a 'straight' magician (a la Paul Daniels) would not get a TV show on UK TV at the moment.

Its a double misdirection, first the trick and then the 'explanation'.

However this if hugely OT for Natasha's thread, if you'd like to start a new 'Derren Brown does real psychological effects .. pH you're an idiot" thread then I'll be happy to contribute

Zombrex

pH wrote:

However this if hugely OT for Natasha's thread, if you'd like to start a new 'Derren Brown does real psychological effects .. pH you're an idiot" thread then I'll be happy to contribute

I see that and I raise you 20 ...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054870851