BodyTalk & Quantum Quackery

<< < (7/7)

ingwe (February 10, 2009, 17:21:23 PM):
¿Que? Er, I’m a bit lost. Whose/which claims are you referring to? ???

I am sorry the only claims worthy of JREF are those of talker1001. I did not check the dates of his last post either! I think I need a reading lesson prior to posting!!! I am sorry!
Rigil Kent (February 10, 2009, 19:08:43 PM):
Ingwe, I am also concerned about whether it is indeed possible in principle for this Body Talk system to be authenticated. If I may be so vain as to quote myself

However I'm a bit worried about the evaluation system that you are going to employ in deciding whether the outcome of such an experiment is positive or not, and urge you to consider it carefully.

For instance, if a missing finger grows back, I'm sure all will be duly impressed, but I fear something more subjective like "feeling more relaxed afterwards" just won't cut it for most on this forum.

The JREF (or its representative), and the demonstrator must agree to a test protocol (experimental design) that will unequivocally prove the truth value of the claim.

What sort of protocol do you recon might work for the Body Talk system. :-\

Mefiante (February 10, 2009, 20:20:05 PM):
I am sorry … I am sorry!
Nothing to apologise for, but thanks for clearing it up.

What sort of protocol do you recon might work for the Body Talk system. :-\
Since the system is supposedly capable of diagnosis, the test should perhaps focus on that dimension. One way would be for the practitioner to match medical conditions to the patients who have them in a series of blind sessions where no verbal communication is permitted between patient and BodyTalk practitioner. To put some numbers to it, the practitioner gets to examine three randomly chosen patients using the EPFX/QXCI/SCIO machine and once all the examinations have been completed, the practitioner matches each patient to one in a list of 23 unique précis medical case histories that give only the most significant details. The chances of succeeding with all three by pure chance is about 1:10,200 – just above the JREF’s requirement of 1:10,000 for the preliminary test. Obviously, any conditions whose presence is evident from direct sensory input would be excluded. Any information outside the scope of the case histories is to be deemed not relevant in terms of the test.

The claimed curative powers of the modality will be difficult to test but it could be done with a double blind study using both real and bogus/simulated devices that look alike on a range of common “soft” conditions like headaches, stress, lethargy, etc. If the device works as claimed, there should be differentials in curative rates between the bogus and the real devices.

Rigil Kent (February 11, 2009, 19:07:04 PM):
That sounds like a reasonable approach for evaluating the device's diagnostic capability. The curative investigation then basically amounts to a clinical trial, not so?

Mefiante (February 11, 2009, 22:17:43 PM):
The curative investigation then basically amounts to a clinical trial, not so?
Yes, that’s the gist of it. I don’t see any other way of assessing curative efficacy unless practitioners can put forward a firm commitment concerning their machine’s capacity to cure a condition that is not self-limiting and which normally requires another form of direct intervention, for example something like kidney stones. And I can’t imagine them making such claims because they are far too easily falsifiable. The touchy-feely rhetoric is much easier to sell than eminently testable promises, and it is far less likely to come back and bite you on the nose.



[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page