User talk:Dreadstar/ND

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 BillC's comments on the draft 2 Response to BillC’s feedback 2.1 A priori assumptions that Demkina has psychic powers 2.2 POV phrases 2.3 Someone's opinion presented as fact 2.4 Factually incorrect, and a priori assumption of her claims 2.5 Repetition of earlier material 2.6 External links 2.7 Head swapping 2.8 Japanese sourcing 3 Rohirok's comments on the draft

Discussion of the ND Draft should go here.

[edit] BillC's comments on the draft

I raised some issues previously, and I don't feel that they were sufficiently addressed. So I am raising them in more specific detail below:

• A priori assumptions that Demkina has psychic powers:
  • "Natasha’s family is not sure about the exact origin or cause of Natasha’s gift, but it began when Natasha was ten years old"
  • "she began to comment on the fact she could see inside people"
  • "appearing to have no abilities when in fact she has some"

• POV phrases:
  • "so she would be able to continue helping people"
  • "He goes on to suggest that perhaps Natasha cheated, even though there is no evidence of this." This statement appears unsupported by the reference
  • "This is a statistically significant result". Any statistical significance should relate to the plausibility of the hypothesis

• Someone's opinion presented as fact:

"Many viewers... came away with the feeling that the primary test... had been set up to ensure that she would fail." This was Josephson's opinon, but you have not ascribed it as such. It is not sufficient to just link to his website, you should make it clear that it is someone's opinion.

• Factually incorrect, and a priori assumption of her claims:
  • "The British researchers unanimously acknowledged Natasha's remarkable gift"
  • "British investigators were convinced"

• Repetition of earlier material:

"Previous tests in London and New York led to mixed results..." You have already described both the London and New York events.

• External links

You have chosen three links that are all highly critical of the New York tests. This appears to be an attempt to lead the reader into a critical opinion of them him/herself. Do you consider a web page to be a recommended read in which the author attempts to make his point by swapping heads on the people concerned?

Almost all of the details from the Japanese test come from either Demkina's website, or from Pravda.ru. Neither should be regarded as an unbiased, reliable source. If your only source for material is an unreliable one, then you have no way of knowing if its information is accurate or not, and it should be omitted from the article, unless it is critical to retain it.

"Critics claim the Tokyo tests were not performed under strict conditions and are therefore invalid." More just being simply not carried out under strict conditions, in fact, we know nothing whatsoever about the experimental controls that were placed in Tokyo, even if we were to accept Pravda.ru as a reliable source. The Tokyo tests are so poorly described in any source that they are essentially worthless. Consider, for example the test with the dog. One of the principal skeptical charges against Demkina is that she is employing a form of cold reading, picking up on subtle responses from her subjects in order to hone in on the topic. If the test was carried out as Pravda.ru describes (and we have no way of being confident that it was so), then it was presumably an attempt by Machi to remove this confounding factor from the test, there being no possibility of communication between Demkina and the dog. But yet, having gone to those lengths, he goes and destroys his experimental controls by not only being in the room at the same time (removing double blinding), but the man actually goes and points out to Demkina that she should be looking at the animal's paw! When so little care has been taken over one aspect of a scientific experiment, the rest of the results is not merely called into question, but should be junked as experimentally worthless. --BillC 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to BillC’s feedback

Thanks for your help with this BillC, it's much appreciated!

[edit] A priori assumptions that Demkina has psychic powers

• "Natasha’s family is not sure about the exact origin or cause of Natasha’s gift, but it began when Natasha was ten years old"

How do we modify the "a priori" comments like this? This is Natasha’s story as told by her mother and herself. Should it be modified to something like "Natasha's family claims they are not sure about the exact origin..." Or "According to Natasha's mother..." or "...Natasha’s family is not sure about the exact origin or cause of Natasha’s alleged gift."?

• I changed the wording to say, "Natasha’s family says they are unsure about the exact origin or cause of Natasha’s reputed gift,..."

• "she began to comment on the fact she could see inside people"

Well, she made the comments…and still does…that statement just shows when she presumably first said it. This doesn’t mean she has the ability, but started to make comments along those lines. How do we avoid that? It's reported in the Discovery Channel documentary and on her website. Would removing the word "fact" be ok? Or something like, "she began to claim she could see inside people?"

• I changed the wording to say, "she began to claim that she could see inside people."

• "appearing to have no abilities when in fact she has some"

That’s actually an “i.e” example to illustrate a point about what you mention below, the “plausibility of the hypothesis” as it relates to the statistics. No inference should be made from that sentence that ‘in fact she has some [paranormal abilities].'

[edit] POV phrases

• "so she would be able to continue helping people"

Whatever help it is that she gives, yes. It’s her statement, and the Discovery Channel reported it – and it’s explicitly stated at the beginning of the paragraph “according to the Discovery Channel”. What should be done with it? Perhaps, "This was a boon to Natasha because it helped her in her stated goal to attend medical school in Moscow so she would be able to continue helping people."

• I changed the wording to say:, "This was a boon to Natasha because it helped her in her stated goal to attend medical school in Moscow so she would be able to "continue helping people.""

• "He goes on to suggest that perhaps Natasha cheated, even though there is no evidence of this." This statement appears unsupported by the reference

I thought it was pretty clear in the reference, [1] where it states:

"At best, she's done this a lot and she has a real expertise at being able to look at people and make reasonably accurate diagnoses. But at worst, there's something else going on," says Richard Wiseman,

“Prof Wiseman, who helped design the test, says that although they have no proof Natasha cheated, a lot of text messages were being sent between her and her companions during the test, something the scientists had expressly forbidden. “

• "This is a statistically significant result". Any statistical significance should relate to the plausibility of the hypothesis

It’s still considered a statistically significant result in clinical trials. The plausibility of the hypothesis adjustment is taken into account in the statements on “Bayesian Analysis.”

[edit] Someone's opinion presented as fact

• "Many viewers... came away with the feeling that the primary test... had been set up to ensure that she would fail." This was Josephson's opinon, but you have not ascribed it as such. It is not sufficient to just link to his website, you should make it clear that it is someone's opinion.

Done. Although, many people did come away with the distinct impression that the test was set up to ensure Natasha’s failure, that’s not just Josephson’s opinion – but how does one quantify that from sources other than blogs and bulletin boards?

[edit] Factually incorrect, and a priori assumption of her claims

• "The British researchers unanimously acknowledged Natasha's remarkable gift"

That comment is about the London appearance, and from everything I read, the researchers (Journalists) who brought her there indeed did unanimously acknowledge the "remarkable gift." How about something like, “In the London appearance, the British researchers unanimously acknowledged Natasha’s remarkable gift.” Is your point that Wiseman was a British researcher who certainly didn't join in on the unanimousness? Or something else?

• Changed this to say: "The British journalists in the London appearance unanimously acknowledged Natasha's remarkable gift,..."

• "British investigators were convinced"

Same thing? “In her London appearance, the British Journalists were convinced.” ?

• Removed comment.

[edit] Repetition of earlier material

"Previous tests in London and New York led to mixed results..." You have already described both the London and New York events.

• Removed.

[edit] External links

• You have chosen three links that are all highly critical of the New York tests. This appears to be an attempt to lead the reader into a critical opinion of them him/herself. Do you consider a web page to be a recommended read in which the author attempts to make his point by swapping heads on the people concerned?

Those are in addition to the ones already in the current article, I’ve added the ones not included.

[edit] Head swapping

As for the “swapping heads,” that part isn't actually linked, and I do think the actual analysis of that author is very relevant, and should be a recommended read, after all it’s not a cited reference, and material should to be provided to show another view of the several CSICOP references that are actually cited. It’s just further reading…

The swapping heads and other drawings are apparently used as satire and ridicule. If we really want to go down the path of selecting sites based on satire and ridicule…well, then, the CSICOP.org website certainly has its own "not brand ech" of that - even having it’s own satirical and ridiculing drawings, Sheep and goat heads satirical picture of a medium

Satire and ridicule are so embedded within the CSICOP material that I don’t think the pictures on Siqueria’s website even come close to being a problem. Let’s not even think about the satire and ridicule on one of the current references…JREF. Although I do agree with the average human brain drawing - even though I think there should be a much larger "beer" area.

[edit] Japanese sourcing

• Almost all of the details from the Japanese test come from either Demkina's website, or from Pravda.ru. Neither should be regarded as an unbiased, reliable source. If your only source for material is an unreliable one, then you have no way of knowing if its information is accurate or not, and it should be omitted from the article, unless it is critical to retain it.

I believe it’s critical since it is a significant part of Natasha’s history outside Russia and CSICOP. She went there, it happened, we should say so. It's important to give a fuller picture of Natasha and her history, and the trip to Japan and London are both important parts of that – especially considering the percentage of the current version devoted to CSICOP.

The essential to using Natasha’s own website is from Reliable Sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves.

• "Critics claim the Tokyo tests were not performed under strict conditions and are therefore invalid." More just being simply not carried out under strict conditions, in fact, we know nothing whatsoever about the experimental controls that were placed in Tokyo, even if we were to accept Pravda.ru as a reliable source. The Tokyo tests are so poorly described in any source that they are essentially worthless. Consider, for example the test with the dog. One of the principal skeptical charges against Demkina is that she is employing a form of cold reading, picking up on subtle responses from her subjects in order to hone in on the topic. If the test was carried out as Pravda.ru describes (and we have no way of being confident that it was so), then it was presumably an attempt by Machi to remove this confounding factor from the test, there being no possibility of communication between Demkina and the dog. But yet, having gone to those lengths, he goes and destroys his experimental controls by not only being in the room at the same time (removing double blinding), but the man actually goes and points out to Demkina that she should be looking at the animal's paw! When so little care has been taken over one aspect of a scientific experiment, the rest of the results is not merely called into question, but should be junked as experimentally worthless.

Tell me about it, I agree with you, it wasn’t well done and we certainly can’t draw scientific conclusions from it - I hope I’m not giving that impression – I’m just trying to give the history of what happened there. There are secondary sources that agree with both Pravda.RU and Natasha’s site on the way it happened, but unfortunately nothing that I can cite – and nothing there says it was a true scientific study that would pass any peer-review process. It’s funny, but that’s the way I feel about the CSICOP-CSMMH material too, it should be junked as experimentally worthless.

It’s an interesting problem, Natasha’s entire premise is that she has paranormal abilities – how to walk the fine NPOV line while giving her side of the story. CSICOP material goes the other way, it clearly indicates to the reader that she cannot do what she says, even though the testing didn’t prove it one way or another. Both sides need to be told, those that think she does (the London and Japanese researchers) and those that think she doesn’t, the American contingent.

If you like BillC, feel free to add your comments between mine above. Only BillC, tho, I don't want a free-for-all started here. Trying to remain productive on this page. Dreadlocke 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rohirok's comments on the draft

I must concur with the bulk of BillC's comments. Do you have plans to edit this draft in response to criticism? For example, how would you change "Natasha’s family is not sure about the exact origin or cause of Natasha’s gift..." so as not to make an a priori assumption that Natasha's claimed gift is an actual one? Rohirok 14:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Rohirok! Yes, I am editing the draft in response to BillC's feedback. As I indicated in my response to BillC, I was wondering how do we (I) modify the "a priori" comments like the one you point out? This is Natasha’s story as told by her mother and herself. Should it be modified to something like "Natasha's family says they are not sure about the exact origin..." Or "According to Natasha's mother..." or "...Natasha’s family is not sure about the exact origin or cause of Natasha’s alleged gift."?

How do you think it should be re-written? I'm looking for help! Dreadlocke 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The draft is now better with regards to the former a priori assumption that Natasha had a paranormal gift. I do think that there should be a more careful use of sources of dubious reliability, such that claims and perspectives gleaned from these sources are represented as such, and not necessarily as the truth. Some of the discussion in the Discovery Channel appearance section presents paranormalists' perspectives as truth, rather than as perspectives. These ought to be identified as perspectives, as should the persons holding such perspectives, in a way similar to how I identified the skeptical researchers' perspectives in a recent edit of the article. Also, the further reading section seems overwhelmingly weighted in favor of a pro-paranormalist perspective.

That said, I'm not sure how much we can accomplish by coming to agreement on this draft, as any major change of the actual article will inevitably be disputed and reverted. I think we might accomplish more by attempting small changes on the actual article. The current consensus is that Natasha's personal website is an acceptable source for Natasha's claims about herself. I cannot translate Russian, but perhaps you could begin by editing the article so it references an important claim Natasha makes about herself on her website, and moving her website from the external links section to the sources section. This must be done carefully of course, as claims have to be identified as claims, and not merely repeated in the article as if they were truth. Any other use of the website as a source will no doubt meet stiff resistance, and I would have to side with such resistance. Rohirok 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)