<<
Return to Index
The Natasha Demkina experiment
That
CSICOP would endorse the rigged experiment (which, if anything
DEMONSTRATED Natasha's abilities quite clearly) as a successful
"debunking" has cost them ALL credibility for
their future conduct unless they reform themselves and quit
devising rigged experiments which violated standard scientific
protocols, and making arbitrary cut-offs like the difference
between 4/10,000 = "genuine ability vs 12/10,000 =
fraud.
by Aaron Kulkis
Computer Systems Engineer
“I just saw TLC's broadcast of the CSISOP's "debunking"
in New York.
I'm an engineer, and skeptical by default.
I was APPALLED at the behavior of CSISOP.
They set the "standard" as getting 5 out of 7.
Natasha specifically stated that two specific cases would
be difficult to identify:
1: removed appendix -- which if you've ever seen the digestive
tract, I would challenge an accomplished SURGEON with a
cadaver fully opened up to determine if the cadaver still
had its appendix without rearranging the intestines to find
it...let alone if the cadaver were in an upright position
so that
all of the intestinal tissue would be pressing down on it.
So, in this case, the CSICOP "researchers" were
demanding that the girl perform a feat WHICH SHE
HERSELF CLAIMED SHE COULD NOT DO.
2: Removal of a section of trachea. Again, Natasha said
that this was beyond her ability to detect.
So, again, CSICOP was DEMANDING THAT SHE DEMONSTRATE AN
ABILITY WHICH SHE DID NOT CLAIM.
So, right there, those two subjects should have been sent
home, as they were not satisfactory subjects for an ability
CLAIMED by Natasha.
So much for basic experimental methods and scientific ethics
of these CSICOP guys.
Second, they decided that given 7 subjects and 7 conditions,
success would be defined by matching 5 or more. (Even though
she had already stated that 2 were unsuitable)
So let's do the probabilistic methods mathematics:
The probability of matching one of the 7 diagnoses by chance
is:
P = 1/7
= 0.14285
= 14.285%
The probability of matching a 2nd:
P = 1/7 x 1/6
= 1/(7 x 6)
= 1/42
= 0.023809
= 2.3809% or approximately 238/10,000
the probability of matching a 3rd:
P = 1/7 x 1/6 x 1/5
= 1/(7 x 6 x 5)
= 1/210
= 0.004761
= 0.4761% or approximately 47/10,000
the probability of matching a 4th:
P = 1/7 x 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4
= 1(7 x 6 x 5 x 4)
= 1/840
= 0.0011904
= 0.1190% or approximately 12/10,000
the probability of getting a 5th right:
P = 1/7 x 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4 x 1/3
= 1/( 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 )
= 1/2520
= 0.000396825
= 0.0396825% or approximately 4/10,000
the probability of getting a 6th right:
P = 1/7 x 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4 x 1/3 x 1/2
= 1/(7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x3 x 2)
= 1/5040
= 0.00019841
= 0.019841 or approximately 2/10,000
The probability of getting the 7th right is identical to
getting the 6th right, because if you get 6 right, then
the 7th MUST be right...and sure enough, the mathematical
pattern confirms that the two cases have the same probability
(because the newest factor is 1/1):
P = 1/7 x 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4 x 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/1
= 1/(7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x3 x 2 x 1)
= 1/5040
= 0.00019841
= 0.019841 or approximately 2/10,000
So, the CSICOP researchers decided that a result with a
probability of 4/10,000 demonstrates ability, but one with
a probability of 12/10,000 demonstrates that she's just
a fraud.
BALONEY!
These two CSICOP guys should have THEIR abilities to make
basic, rational decisions tested.
It is quite obvious that for them, this is not about testing,
but instead, disproving that which they cannot explain is
a RELIGION with them -- that is, they have a preconceived
conclusion, BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED, and then slanted
the experiment in such a way (such a making the girl perform
past her claimed abilities, etc.) so as to guaranteed "failure"
which is...a mindset of a religion zealot, but not of scientists.
In the army, I routinely shoot EXPERT (which is to say,
36+ hits out of 40 at silhoutte targets).
Put me into a 9-timezone jetlag sleep deprived situation,
and then add additional stressors by using specifically
disruptive range procedures, and I sure as heck would NOT
perform at my usual levels of ability. Would that then,
prove that shooting a rifle is pseudoscientific mumbojumbo,
or would it merely demonstrate that the conditions had been
rigged against me?
If CSICOP had been around in the late 1800's, they would
have been "debunking" Tesla and Marconi...and
if they had been around in the mid 1800's, the would have
been "debunking" the telegraph, and the (at the
time observed, but not yet understood) phenomenon of electromagnetism,
by insisting that batteries, inductors, and other not-well-understood
parts be prohibited from the "test."
These two men had incontrovertable evidence of something
truly amazing, and all they were really interested in doing
was pissing on it, so as to maintain their belief system,
rather than admitting that this girl might have some unusual
ability beyond THEIR understanding (although whether it
is exactly how she describes it is still not determined).
Personally, the next time I am in St. Petersburg, I am
probably going to take a side-trip to Moscow for a short
conversation with Natasha, if it is possible to do so.
Publicize the probabilities of success vs. failure for
the various numbers of correct assignments.
Let the public know.
I have, for the last few years, suspected that CSICOP had
lost interest in debunking known charlatans who use time-tested,
but relatively unknown stage-magic tricks, and, like the
civil rights movement, having personnel but no remaining
purpose, decided that they need to continue attacking new
targets, and performing their OWN sins of the same type
that they formerly fought.
That CSICOP would endorse the rigged experiment (which,
if anything DEMONSTRATED Natasha's abilities quite clearly)
as a successful "debunking" has cost them ALL
credibility for their future conduct unless they reform
themselves and quit devising rigged experiments which violated
standard scientific protocols, and making arbitrary cut-offs
like the difference between 4/10,000 = "genuine ability
vs 12/10,000 = fraud.
4 out of 7 correct is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
and the difference between 4/7 vs 5/7 is STATISTICALLY
INSIGNIFICANT.
And this is while she was sleep deprived, and deliberately
put under stress.
Or, it could be that, if they admitted that the girl DOES
have an ability they can't explain, CSICOP would have been
obligated to pay the $1.1M dollar prize they have promised
to anyone who demonstrates such an ability.
She clearly DID demonstrate the ability for 4 of the 5
whom she claimed were with her ability, and, not surprisingly,
0 out of 2 WHICH SHE ADMITTED WERE BEYOND HER ABIITY TO
DISCERN.
This is fundamentally dishonest.
It is clear now, that CSICOP has an agenda of some sort
-- possibly to prevent the public of knowing about phenomenon
which our current level of scientific understanding cannot
explain....but WHY?
I don't see CSICOP attacking physicists when the high-energy
physicists demonstrate phenomenon which are currently unexplained.
As an independant observer well-educated in experimental
procedures and analysis at Purdue University and elsewhere,
the CSICOP personnel's behavior to put it lightly.. SUCKED.
Of course, since CSICOP is more interested in pushing an
agenda than in drawing true conclusions, I'll bet that the
CC's of this letter to that organization, and the house
organ will never be acknowledged, let alone published.”
Aaron Kulkis
Computer Systems Engineer October 2005
<<
<<
Return to Index |
