View Single Post
Old 31st March 2010, 02:43 PM   #148
Nigel Aves
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2
A quick response. It's taken a bit of time to get signed up on these forums.
First off, this is the very first time that Brian or myself had ever talked to Anita. The only “facts” that we could go on are those available on the IIG website. Test 1 – failed / Test 2 – success / Test 3 Success on person / Failed on kidney side. From what we read on IIG the test was choosing the person and then selecting the missing side the kidney was on. This test was conducted with three groups of 6 people of whom one would have a missing kidney. I mention this only because I saw ..
“she left two people in each group of 12 as being without a kidney” … there were no groups of 12. Only groups of 6.
I read a little earlier in the forums that the test was only based on "which side the kidney was missing". That being the case the test should only have had participants with a missing kidney. If you look at the IIG test and the way it is conducted you'll see that it is really for for both. Finding the person and choosing the correct side because you cannot get the correct side and no person! So, it was a two part test.

The thing we talked about was that even though all of us are in agreement that as per the stated test protocols Anita failed and Anita totally agrees she failed the test. But what we did agree on was that there was sufficient evidence from the test to be worthy of a 2nd look. Nothing more, nothing less.

The test as it was designed by IIG and approved by Anita gives us the following "odds". The odds are a little different than the way that Powerball odds are worked out as it's three separate tests but the results are all based as a whole. These typically would be the odds as given in a betting shop.

The chart shows test group1 x test group2 x test group 3 and possible success.
Person - Side - Odds - % chance of hit

0x0x0 0x0x0 1331 / 1728 - 77% of getting test totally wrong
1x0x0 0x0x0 726 / 1728 - 42%
1x1x0 0x0x0 396 / 1728 - 23%
1x1x1 0x0x0 216 / 1728 - 12%
1x0x0 1x0x0 121 / 1728 - 7%
1x1x0 1x0x0 66 / 1728 - 4% << Anita's result
1x1x0 1x1x0 11 / 1728 - 0.6%
1x1x1 1x0x0 36 / 1728 - 2%
1x1x1 1x1x0 6 / 1728 - 0.3%
1x1x1 1x1x1 1 / 1728 - 0.05% chance of getting test totally correct

BTW - The odds of dying from an injury during the year and becoming a target for Sylvia Browne and John Edwards is about 1/1820 Which are actually pretty close odds to what Anita was being asked to accomplish.


So when you look at the statistical outcome of the result Anita had a 4% chance of getting to where she did. That is incredibly low odds (about 1 /26) and that is why we believed that Anita should be given a 2nd chance.

It's a great shame that there is so much negativism about this subject on the JREF forums and I was very pleased to see the following on the IIG web site.

"IIG Chair and CFI-Los Angeles Executive Director Jim Underdown is excited. “With Sylvia Browne, Allison DuBois, and John Edward running around making outrageous claims, and refusing to allow any outside scrutiny,” says Underdown, “it’s quite refreshing to see someone come forward and put their money where their mouth is"."

She should actually be congratulated for having the nerve and courage for doing what she did. She stood, she was counted and she failed. And where she is a lot different from other paranormal tests, she is not making excuses for her failures. Even during the tests she was honest in her conclusions. The first group she admitted she had no clue. Would it not have been a lot easier to risk a guess?

Skeptics are not debunkers, they are a different animal. Skeptics use critical thinking and come to conclusions based on the available evidence. The other important aspect of a skeptic is that when we see some light in a tunnel we should be happy. It's the only way we can work. This is what makes a skeptic different from the Woo and the cynics. When you become a cynic you are actually no better than those we are trying to question and sadly it's far to easy to slip from skeptic to cynic just because of all the nonsense that is out there and the people who are screwing hard earned cash away using what I would consider the tools of the grifter.

As skeptics we need to make sure that the moral high ground remains ours. We must never slip into the "miss quoting" and "lying" and "slandering" so often used as main tools by the "other side".
Nigel Aves is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top