Natasha Demkina, a young girl living in Saransk, Russia, began to receive a lot of media attention around the middle of last month. It started with an article in Pravda, which hailed her as the 'Girl with X-ray vision'. You see, Natasha possesses the unusual ability to peer through human flesh and spot diseases and injuries that are lurking unseen within people's bodies. Or, at least, this is what Pravda claimed. It didn't take long for more newspapers to catch onto the story. The British Sun has been the most relentless about pursuing it. They've actually flown Natasha to London and are now parading her around like some kind of weird curiosity. Does Natasha really have x-ray eyes? Well, I doubt it. But I'm sure The Sun is going to milk this for all it's worth.
Comments
P(N = k) = 1/(e * k!)
which gives
P(0) = 0.36788
P(1) = 0.36788
P(2) = 0.18394
P(3) = 0.06131
P(4) = 0.01533
P(5) = 0.00306
P(6) = 0.00051
P(7) = 0.00007
According to Hyman's brief notes, P(4) = 0.01533 and P(4 to 7) = 0.01899. According to my figures using the Poisson approximation, P(4) = 0.01533, and P(4 to 7) = 0.01897. The P(4) figures are identical, and the P(4 or more) figures disagrees by 0.00002. This may be due to different calculation methods. It looks like a very good match.
The exact probabilities, calculated by going through all permutations, are:
P(0) = 1854/5040 = 0.36789
P(1) = 1855/5040 = 0.36806
P(2) = 924/5040 = 0.18333
P(3) = 315/5040 = 0.06250
P(4) = 70/5040 = 0.01389
P(5) = 21/5040 = 0.00417
P(6) = 0/5040 = 0.00000
P(7) = 1/5040 = 0.00020
It's a pain to have to reverse-engineer the method by which the probabilities were calculated, rather than simply be told. But it's been the only way. Ross-c more or less dismissed the use of the Poisson approximation a few days back:
Ross-c wrote on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 01:22 PM: "The page mentions a "Poisson approximation", but this is for very large matching problems, not 7."
http://www.ds.unifi.it/VL/VL_EN/urn/urn6.html
What also makes testing of her claims difficult is the fact that she says she has no problem seeing through the patient's clothing (which is how she does her readings). However, she says she can't see through the very same fabric if the fabric is not worn by the subject by just hanging in front of them. We originally planned to have people stand behind a cloth screen so that the test would be blinded. But Natasha claims she is not able to see through a screen of fabric. Although she can see through fabric when it is worn by the person! That's the marvelous thing about the paranormal! It's so irrational.
I regret to say, not every skeptic agrees with us about the Emily Rosa's study of Therapeutic Touch pracitioners (JAMA. 1998;279:1005-1010). There's quite a bit of animosity between some skeptics and Emily's mother. I don't know the origin of this rift, but I'm not the least bit persuaded by her critics. I was one of the reviewers of the study for JAMA and I stand by my recommendation to publish it with high priority. It's a very imaginative and soundly conceived and executed study. While people can find flaws in any study (there's no such thing as a flawless study), the Rosa study proves that the Therapeutic Touch practitioners were NOT able to do what they claim. What's more, they continue to refuse to subject their claims to further study. Only a fool or a liar can't figure out what this means.
I predict the JAMA study by Linda Rosa, Emily Rosa, Dr. Stephen Barrett, and Larry Sarner will continue to be a well-remembered classic in the literature on medical quackery.
"The fact that Dr. Josephson is a Nobel lauriate is not reason enough to accept.."
I dont give one sweet damn.
I'm sure you don't. After all, logical thought and scientific method would just get in the way of your fantasy world-view.
See ya' at the Nobel awards ceremony!
I wonder if William Shockley is another Nobel laureate hero of yours -- you know, always right while the rest of the scientific community is wrong. He's an outspoke racist. And like Brian Josephson, he used his Nobel fame to promote crackpot pseudoscience.
When you made the statement "Fomalhaut, if your surprised at Skolnick's abusiveness, you should know it's standard practice for male-dominated CSICOP" I pegged you as a sexist. You see, fixit, when someone says to me something like "I was in a car accident. I was hit by some Mexican in a pick-up" I'm pretty sure that pewrson is a racist. Why? Because the ethnicity of the other driver has nothing to do with the accident. Just as Skolnick's abusiveness has nothing to do with his gender or the fact that CSICOP is "male dominated".
I also assumed that you were a supporter of Natasha Demkina because of your statement in the following post, "And FYI, about the 3 profs who calculated those odds you wonder about. Prof Hyman does exist, and he's a magician. Also prof Wiseman exists, and he's a magician 😊! Prof Josephson also exists, but he aint a magician, instead a physics nobel lareate - and he digs Natasha:-D!" It sounded as if you were trying to undermine the credibility of Drs. Hyman and Wiseman by implying that they were nothing more than a couple of stage performers. I also natrurally assumed that your ":-D" denoted some measure of glee at the fact that a Nobel laureate was also a believer in Natasha's "gift". Why would you be happy about that unless you also shared his opinion?
I would be happy to find out that I was mistaken in my assumptions, but I don't really hold out much hope for that.
Absolute error = observed value - accepted value
Relative error = absolute error / accepted value
Where PA(N) is the Poisson Approximation, and P(N) is the exact probability, relative error E(N) = ABS( PA(N)/P(N) - 1 )
E(0) = 0.00003 = 0.003%
E(1) = 0.00050 = 0.050%
E(2) = 0.00333 = 0.333%
E(3) = 0.01904 = 1.904%
E(4) = 0.10367 = 10.367%
E(5) = 0.26618 = 26.618%
E(6) = infinite
E(7) = 0.65000 = 65.000%
and
E(4 to 7) = 0.03888 = 3.888%
So, what causes Skolnick's abusiveness then? Bad parenting? Genetic defect? Haemorrhoids? I'm all ears.
And why does he post under a different name these days than at the top of the thread?
"..hope it's the end of it."
Probably not.
1)I do not speak for Skolnic and am under no obligation to explain his behaviour, therefore, I won't speculate as to his motivation.
2) My remark about how Skolnick's behaivour and gender were unrelated were directed at fixit. I was pointing out a flaw in his/her logic.
3)When I said that I "hope it's the end of it", the "it" I was referring to was the flame war between you and Skolnick. The fact that the difference between the two calculated probabilities was small (which, I might add was something you both agreed upon from the beginning) was confirmed by your arithmatic.
If you think I'm a jack-ass, you're not alone. Even many of my friends believe that about me. My motives in this thread have been only to point out poor logic and weak reasoning where I saw it.
This was my link to the CSICOP piece
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
In that link which you guys didnt bother reading was this
"There are four major features that characterize CSICOP, affect its choice of goals, and determine its spheres of influence. Perhaps the single most important factor is the high educational level of the membership; many hold prominent positions within academia. Another aspect is that a disproportionate number of members are magicians, and many of them were involved with parapsychological controversies long before the establishment of the Committee. A third distinguishing feature is that the vast majority in CSICOP are male, and this has affected the tone and demeanor of the group. A final characteristic is the influence of religious convictions; a substantial portion of the members share similar views and are active in promoting them."
and this
"CSICOP is heavily dominated by men, and until 1991 there were no women at all on the Executive Council. A reporter for New Scientist described CSICOP as
"And youre telling me that if I quote some piece that says CSICOP is male dominated, then Im a sexist fantasist admirer of some Shockly guy? Hello? And if I quote the pope, I'm a catholic? And if I quote Pat Buchanan, I'm a coservative? And if quote Jane Fonda I'm a pinko commie? Huh?"
That's called a "straw-man" argument. And it's not even a very good one, either.
Perhaps you should re-read my post more carefully and respond to what it actually says.
I didnt make no argument. Its you, not me, whose building straw men.
Two magicians, a nutty prof, and now you bunch of jokers. Ha ha ha ha ha.
"I didnt make no argument"
Soooo, I guess you're post didn't really have a point and you weren't trying to make any contribution to either side of the argument. You were just posting facts that were tangential in some way to the subject but not in any way meant to be read as support to either side.
So why the hell did you bother posting?
"Two magicians, a nutty prof, and now you bunch of jokers. Ha ha ha ha ha."
That's the sound of check-mate, sceptics. fixit's kung-fu is too strong for us.
To have fomalhaut know that CSICOP has a history of the kind of abusiveness he/she was facing. Why the hell else dya think?
And now Im gonna go watch the X-files. Or maybe Buffy. Or Shakespeare's MacBeth. Or Homer's Odyssey. Great paranormal entertainment. Ha ha ha ha.
Indeed, that was all I thought Fixit was trying to do.
Fixit wrote: "Or Shakespeare's MacBeth. Or Homer's Odyssey. Great paranormal entertainment."
Interesting final jab. If we are to be rid of all things 'paranormal', there's a whole raft of literature and poetry and art and religion and myth and legend that would have to be disposed of.
I'd not thought of that.
But it seems that the entertainment value is the only real benifit to believing in the paranormal. In fact, that's probably the real reason most people DO believe in it.
Don't think fixit was making a point. He/she doesn't like to do that.
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/csicop.html
"..It disturbs us that paranormal popularizers have so effectively spread their propaganda that alien abductions are thus firmly rooted in the culture.
And things are getting worse. A couple of years ago, that did not seem possible. We thought the upsurge in television programs with paranormal themes could never be duplicated. Shows like "The X-Files," "Sightings," and "Encounters: The Hidden Truth" made their debuts. The Learning Channel produced a series called "Mysterious Forces Beyond" and NBC launched the (thankfully) short-lived daily talk-show "The Other Side." Today, most of those credulous programs are still on the air. And thanks to their success, American viewers can gear up for another season of new pro-paranormal programs. According to TV Guide, (Jan 14-20):
"The supernatural success of Fox's "The X-Files" has every network believing in the paranormal. There are at least 25 sci-fi or just plain weird drama series brewing. CBS is developing a series called "Nightmares," featuring a man with amnesia who ha s prescient dreams of disasters. Then there's "The Calling" for NBC, in which a female Wall Street stockbroker gets struck by lightning and gains spooky mental abilities. The Warner Brothers Network is putting together a series based on the horror-spoofing film Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
CSICOP is run by rude and hostile people. Therefore, Natasha Demkina's claims must be true. You're not saying that either, of course.
You don't really assert anything in your posts. You just like to point out irrelivent things that might be "interesting" to the people who ARE saying something.
I don't agree with fomalhaut on some things, but at least he has the intelligence and spine to actually make an argument to support a proposition.
I'll make an assertion, now. Natasha Demkina is either a fraud or delusinal. She CAN NOT "see inside peoples bodies" as she claims. She is completely unable to demonstrate that claim. The fact that CSICOP investigators were rude is inconsequential. She couldn't see a metal plate in someone's head.
Get over it.
Natasha was tired that day OR the "vibrations" in the room were wrong OR the plate in the person's head is of a different kind of metal than Natasha is used to detecting OR the Moon was in the wrong phase and on and on.
Why is it always that the onus is on skeptics to prove a negative (which is almost always impossible)?
Then when testing shows that the person with the "powers" can't demonstrate them, they pooh-pooh the results. THEY on the other hand never provide ANY evidence and still get to claim victory. Something's cockeyed here.
This "I believe it and that settles it" paradigm needs to change.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/demkina.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html
Enjoy.
"Natasha's gift could simply be just that--a discovery we have yet to make."
What gift indeed? Andrew, there's a difference between "could be" and "is."
The simple fact is that everytime Natasha has been asked to demonstrate her "gift," she's failed.
Things CAN be tested. Natasha has been tested. She has failed. End of story.
If and when someone comes along who can prove that they really have X-ray vision, that will be a very interesting thing for science to try to understand. It hasn't happened yet and it isn't very likely to happen.
For many reason's Mishal's suggested test would not be a valid scientific test. For one, there is no way to eliminate the "Clever Hans" phenomenon -- which would make the test he proposes utterly useless.
I believe he was trying to say, "Whatever the arguments for and against."
For Morrison, I suspect getting 4 things right out of 7 "is a remarkable achievement in anybody's book."
Boy, I'd love to be a three-card Monte dealer in his neighborhood -- I'd be able to retire early. In the past 30 years, I don't think he's met a single psychic charlatan he hasn't endorsed as having real, genuine supernatural powers.
"Said the Nobel Laureate, "I think Uri is a magician, but I don't particularly believe that he is using trickery."
Anyone who is fooled by Uri "Please don't think of me as Jesus" Geller should not be taken seriously by anyone on the subject of the paranormal.
Geller is a fake and not even a very good one.
Calvin, have you considered taking an adult reading class? It might help.
It is truly evil when media interferes with science.
What is "truly evil" is the promotion of ignorance and superstition over science and reason. Malroy argues for Natasha's right to deceive the desparately ill and that it's immoral for researchers to put a psychic's claim to a controlled test -- although it's perfectly moral for a psychic to tell sick people that she can see diseased organs with her supernatural vision, while doing nothing more than giving them a "cold reading."