Diferencia entre revisiones de «Natalia Diómkina»
m limpiado |
m Deshecha la edición 35566969 de Diego Sanguinetti (disc.) posiblemente falte más información al limpiar |
||
| Línea 15: | Línea 15: | ||
=== Reino Unido === |
=== Reino Unido === |
||
En enero de 2004, tabloide británico''[[The Sun]]'' Demkina traído a Inglaterra. Ella dio una serie de manifestaciones y sus diagnósticos se compararon con el diagnóstico médico profesional. Un documental de Discovery Channel en Demkina menciona los informes de Demkina haber identificado con éxito todas las [[fractura ósea|fracturas]] y [[Pins (productos sanitarios)|patillas de metal]] en una mujer que recientemente había sido víctima de un accidente de coche. <ref name=Discovery /> ''The Guardian''informó de que impresionó a la acogida del programa de televisión durante el día [[This Morning (Serie de TV)|''This Morning'']] mediante la detección de que había un tobillo durante una entrevista.<ref name ="Guardian" /><ref name ="skolnick" /> |
En enero de 2004, tabloide británico''[[The Sun]]'' Demkina traído a Inglaterra. Ella dio una serie de manifestaciones y sus diagnósticos se compararon con el diagnóstico médico profesional. Un documental de Discovery Channel en Demkina menciona los informes de Demkina haber identificado con éxito todas las [[fractura ósea|fracturas]] y [[Pins (productos sanitarios)|patillas de metal]] en una mujer que recientemente había sido víctima de un accidente de coche. <ref name=Discovery /> ''The Guardian''informó de que impresionó a la acogida del programa de televisión durante el día [[This Morning (Serie de TV)|''This Morning'']] mediante la detección de que había un tobillo durante una entrevista.<ref name ="Guardian" /><ref name ="skolnick" /> |
||
Initially, Demkina's demonstrations were well received. However, after she had left the United Kingdom, it emerged that she had made errors among her diagnoses. In one incident she told television-physician Dr. [[Christopher Steele]] that he was suffering from a number of medical conditions, including [[kidney stones]], an ailment of the [[gall bladder]], and an enlarged [[liver]] and [[pancreas]]. Later medical evaluation determined that he was in good health and was not suffering from any of the ailments she had identified.<ref name=NDWeb1 /><ref name=Discovery /><ref name="Guardian" /> |
|||
=== New York === |
|||
In May 2004 she was brought to [[New York City]] by the [[Discovery Channel]] to appear on a documentary titled ''The Girl with X-Ray Eyes'',<ref name="Discovery">The Discovery Channel, 2004, [http://discoverychannel.co.in/human_files/girl_with_xray_eyes/index.shtml ''The Girl with X-Ray Eyes''], [http://web.archive.org/web/20060505051445/http://discoverychannel.co.in/human_files/girl_with_xray_eyes/index.shtml (Wayback Machine)]</ref> and to be tested by skeptical researchers from the [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] (CSI) under partially controlled conditions. |
|||
As a demonstration for the documentary, Demkina was shown wearing her vision-hat and giving diagnoses to people who had previously given descriptions of their specific medical conditions. Most of the people given these readings felt that Demkina had accurately identified their conditions. The researchers, however, were not similarly impressed. CSI researcher [[Richard Wiseman]] said, "When I saw her do her usual readings, I couldn't believe the discrepancy between what I was hearing and how impressed the individuals were... I thought they were going to walk away saying it was embarrassing, but time and again, they said it was amazing. Before each reading, I asked the people what was the main medical problem and Natasha never got one of those right." Wiseman compared the belief of people in Demkina's diagnoses to the belief of people in fortune tellers, and said that people focus only on those portions of Demkina's comments that they believe.<ref name ="Guardian" /> |
|||
Then CSI researchers [[Ray Hyman]] and Wiseman, and Andrew Skolnick of the now defunct [[Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health]] (CSMMH) conducted their test of Demkina. <!-- I think we don't need this here: CSI is an organization dedicated to debunking paranormalist claims, and CSMMH was an affiliated organization. --> In the test, Demkina was asked to correctly match six specified anatomical anomalies to seven volunteer subjects.<ref name="skolnick" /><ref name ="hyman-SI">Hyman R, ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'', May 2005, [http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/natasha.html "Testing Natasha"]</ref> The cases in question included six specified anatomical anomalies resulting from surgery and one "normal" control subject. The researchers said that, because of limitation in time and resources, the preliminary test was designed to look only for a strongly demonstrated ability.<ref name ="hyman-SI" /> The researchers explained that while evidence of a weak or erratic ability may be of theoretical interest, it would be useless for providing medical diagnoses. In addition, the researchers said that the influence of non-paranormal observations could not be ruled out under the lax conditions of the test.<ref name ="hyman-SI" /> Demkina and the investigators had agreed that in order to warrant further testing, she needed to correctly match at least five of the seven conditions.<ref name ="hyman-SI" /> In the 4-hour-long test, Demkina correctly matched conditions to four volunteers, including the control subject. The researchers concluded that she had not demonstrated evidence of an ability that would warrant their further study.<ref name="skolnick">Skolnick AA, ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'', May 2005, [http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/demkina.html "Testing Natasha: The Girl with Normal Eyes"]</ref><ref name="hyman">Hyman R, [[Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal|CSICOP]], [http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha2.html "Statistics and the Test of Natasha"]</ref> |
|||
Subsequently, the design and conclusions of this experiment were subjects of considerable dispute between Demkina's supporters and those of the investigators. |
|||
==== Demkina's criticism ==== |
|||
After completing experiments in New York, Demkina made several complaints in regards to the conditions under which they were conducted, and about the way in which she and her diagnoses were treated. She argued that she had required more time to see a metal plate in one subject's skull, that surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected [[esophagus]] in another, and that she had been presented with two patients who had undergone abdominal procedure, but that she had only one abdominal condition on her list of potential diagnoses, leaving her confused as to which one matched the listed condition. |
|||
She also complained that she was unable to see that one volunteer had had their appendix removed because, in her opinion, appendixes sometimes grow back. She said she was not able to compare her own diagnosis to an independent medical diagnosis after key experiments had been conducted, preventing her from being able to see if she was diagnosing genuine conditions that were unknown to those conducting the experiments, and which were thus being listed against her in the overall results despite them being valid (as a result of this complaint, all volunteers in the Tokyo experiments were required to bring medical certificates with them prior to diagnosis). |
|||
In response to these complaints, the research team stated that Demkina should have been able to find the plate without extrasensory abilities, because its outline could be seen beneath the subject's scalp, and questioned why the presence of scar tissue in a patient's throat had not alerted her to them having an esophagus condition. Additionally, they noted that it remains clinically impossible for an appendix to spontaneously regrow.<ref name=NDWeb1 /><ref name=Discovery /><ref name=skolnick /> |
|||
==== Brian Josephson's criticism ==== |
|||
In a self-published commentary regarding the New York testing performed by [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry|CSICOP]] and CSMMH, [[Brian Josephson]], a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and the director of [[University of Cambridge]]'s Mind-Matter Unification project, criticized the test and evaluation methods used by Hyman and questioned the researchers' motives, leveling the accusation that the experiment had the appearance of being "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic." |
|||
Stating that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive", Josephson argued the odds of Demkina achieving four matches out of seven by chance alone were 1 in 50, or less than 2% - making her success rate a statistically significant result. He also argued that Hyman used a [[Bayesian inference|Bayes factor]] that was statistically unjustifiable because it greatly increased the risk of the experiment falsely recording a moderate correlation as being no correlation.<ref name="josephson"> |
|||
{{cita web |
|||
| apellido = Josephson |
|||
| nombre = Brian |
|||
| enlaceautor = Brian Josephson |
|||
| título = Scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda purposes |
|||
| editorial = |
|||
| fecha = |
|||
| url = http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/ |
|||
| formato = |
|||
| fechaacceso = 31-08-2006 }}</ref><ref name="thes">{{cita web |
|||
| url = http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/THES1.html |
|||
| título = Scientists fail to see eye to eye over girl's 'X-ray vision' |
|||
| enlaceautor = Phil Baty |
|||
| editorial = Times Higher Education Supplement |
|||
| fecha = 10 de diciembre de 2004 }}</ref> |
|||
Hyman responded that the high benchmark used in the testing was necessary due to the higher levels of statistical significance required when testing paranormal claims (extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof),<ref name="hyman" /><ref name="hyman2">{{cita web |
|||
| apellido = Hyman |
|||
| nombre = Ray |
|||
| enlaceautor = Ray Hyman |
|||
| título = Statistics and the Test of Natasha |
|||
| editorial = CSICOP |
|||
| fecha = |
|||
| url = http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/statistics_and_the_test_of_natasha/ |
|||
| formato = |
|||
| fechaacceso = 05-02-2010 }}</ref> |
|||
and that a high Bayes factor was necessary to compensate for the fact that "Demkina was not blindly guessing", but instead "had a great number of [[Cold reading|normal sensory clues]] that could have helped increase her number of correct matches".<ref>Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH), [http://web.archive.org/web/20050204152650/http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/answerstocritics.html "Answer to Critics"]</ref> |
|||
Bayes factors are used to compensate for variables that cannot be calculated through conventional statistics;<ref name=bayesian>Mathworld [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BayesianAnalysis.html Bayesian Analysis]</ref><ref>{{cita web |
|||
| url = http://www.abelard.org/briefings/bayes.htm#testing_for_rare_conditions |
|||
| título = Cause, Chance and Bayesian Statistics: A Briefing Document |
|||
| fechaacceso = 11-09-2006 }}</ref> in this case, the variable created by the visual clues that Demkina might gather from observing a patient.<ref name="hyman2" /> The Bayes factors used by Hyman were calculated by professors [[Persi Diaconis]] and Susan Holmes of the Department of Statistics at Stanford University.<ref name=hyman2 /><ref name=hyman-stat-response>{{cita web|apellido=Hyman|nombre=Ray|enlaceautor=Ray Hyman|título=Statistics of the Natasha test: response to concerns and questions|editorial=Skeptical Inquirer|fecha=Sept/October 2005|url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949|fechaacceso=02-02-2007}}</ref> |
|||
If some sensory cues remain despite attempts to exclude them, the possibility that correct diagnoses have been made by non-psychical means can never be completely ruled out. The question would remain as how many persons other than Natasha Demkina would be able to achieve such a success level, under the same conditions. |
|||
=== Tokyo === |
=== Tokyo === |
||
Revisión del 16:22 27 mar 2010
Natascha Nikoláievna Demkina en ruso: Наталья Николаевна Демкина; nacido en 1987 en Saransk, Mordovia), generalmente conocido con el hipocorístico nomenclatura "Natasha Demkina ', es una joven mujer de Saransk, Rusia, quien afirma poseer una visión especial que le permite observar el interior de los cuerpos humanos y ver los órganos y tejidos, y así hacer que médicos diagnosticaron. Desde la edad de diez años, ella ha realizado lecturas en Rusia.
En 2004, ella apareció en programas de televisión en el Reino Unido, el Discovery Channel y en Japón. Desde 2004 Demkina ha sido un estudiante de tiempo completo de la [[Semashko State Stomatological University], de Moscú. Desde enero de 2006, Demkina ha trabajado para el Centro de Diagnóstico Especial de la Demkina Natalya (TSSD), cuyo objetivo declarado es el de diagnosticar y tratar enfermedades, en colaboración con "expertos que posean habilidades inusuales, los curanderos y los profesionales de la medicina tradicional".[1]
Historia
Según su madre, Tatyana Vladimovna, Demkina su aprendizaje, pero por lo demás, un niño normal hasta que ella tenía diez años, momento en que su capacidad comenzó a manifestarse.[2]
"I was at home with my mother and suddenly I had a vision. I could see inside my mother's body and I started telling her about the organs I could see. Now, I have to switch from my regular vision to what I call medical vision. For a fraction of a second, I see a colorful picture inside the person and then I start to analyze it.""Yo estaba en casa con mi madre y de repente tuve una visión. Pude ver dentro del cuerpo de mi madre y empecé a hablarle de los órganos que pude ver. Ahora, tengo que cambiar de mi visión regular a lo que yo llamo la visión médica . Por una fracción de segundo, veo un cuadro de colores dentro de la persona y luego me pongo a analizarla ".dice Demkina[3]
Después de describir los órganos internos de su madre para ella, la historia de Demkina comenzó a extenderse de boca en boca entre la población local y las personas comenzaron a reunirse fuera de la puerta de su búsqueda de las consultas médicas. Su historia fue recogida por un periódico local en la primavera de 2003 y una estación de televisión local hizo lo propio en noviembre de ese año. Esto llevó a los intereses de un periódico sensacionalista británica, que la invitó a dar manifestaciones en Londres, así como invitaciones de los grupos en Nueva York y Tokio.[1][2]
Russia
Después de las historias sobre Demkina había comenzado a propagarse, los médicos de un hospital infantil en su ciudad natal le pidió llevar a cabo una serie de tareas para ver si sus habilidades eran auténticos. Demkina se informa, han elaborado una imagen de lo que vio dentro del estómago de un médico, marcado con la que tenía una úlcera. También está de acuerdo con el diagnóstico de un paciente de cáncer, diciendo todo lo que podía ver era un pequeño quiste.[1][2]
Reino Unido
En enero de 2004, tabloide británicoThe Sun Demkina traído a Inglaterra. Ella dio una serie de manifestaciones y sus diagnósticos se compararon con el diagnóstico médico profesional. Un documental de Discovery Channel en Demkina menciona los informes de Demkina haber identificado con éxito todas las fracturas y patillas de metal en una mujer que recientemente había sido víctima de un accidente de coche. [2] The Guardianinformó de que impresionó a la acogida del programa de televisión durante el día This Morning mediante la detección de que había un tobillo durante una entrevista.[3][4]
Initially, Demkina's demonstrations were well received. However, after she had left the United Kingdom, it emerged that she had made errors among her diagnoses. In one incident she told television-physician Dr. Christopher Steele that he was suffering from a number of medical conditions, including kidney stones, an ailment of the gall bladder, and an enlarged liver and pancreas. Later medical evaluation determined that he was in good health and was not suffering from any of the ailments she had identified.[1][2][3]
New York
In May 2004 she was brought to New York City by the Discovery Channel to appear on a documentary titled The Girl with X-Ray Eyes,[2] and to be tested by skeptical researchers from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) under partially controlled conditions.
As a demonstration for the documentary, Demkina was shown wearing her vision-hat and giving diagnoses to people who had previously given descriptions of their specific medical conditions. Most of the people given these readings felt that Demkina had accurately identified their conditions. The researchers, however, were not similarly impressed. CSI researcher Richard Wiseman said, "When I saw her do her usual readings, I couldn't believe the discrepancy between what I was hearing and how impressed the individuals were... I thought they were going to walk away saying it was embarrassing, but time and again, they said it was amazing. Before each reading, I asked the people what was the main medical problem and Natasha never got one of those right." Wiseman compared the belief of people in Demkina's diagnoses to the belief of people in fortune tellers, and said that people focus only on those portions of Demkina's comments that they believe.[3]
Then CSI researchers Ray Hyman and Wiseman, and Andrew Skolnick of the now defunct Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH) conducted their test of Demkina. In the test, Demkina was asked to correctly match six specified anatomical anomalies to seven volunteer subjects.[4][5] The cases in question included six specified anatomical anomalies resulting from surgery and one "normal" control subject. The researchers said that, because of limitation in time and resources, the preliminary test was designed to look only for a strongly demonstrated ability.[5] The researchers explained that while evidence of a weak or erratic ability may be of theoretical interest, it would be useless for providing medical diagnoses. In addition, the researchers said that the influence of non-paranormal observations could not be ruled out under the lax conditions of the test.[5] Demkina and the investigators had agreed that in order to warrant further testing, she needed to correctly match at least five of the seven conditions.[5] In the 4-hour-long test, Demkina correctly matched conditions to four volunteers, including the control subject. The researchers concluded that she had not demonstrated evidence of an ability that would warrant their further study.[4][6]
Subsequently, the design and conclusions of this experiment were subjects of considerable dispute between Demkina's supporters and those of the investigators.
Demkina's criticism
After completing experiments in New York, Demkina made several complaints in regards to the conditions under which they were conducted, and about the way in which she and her diagnoses were treated. She argued that she had required more time to see a metal plate in one subject's skull, that surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected esophagus in another, and that she had been presented with two patients who had undergone abdominal procedure, but that she had only one abdominal condition on her list of potential diagnoses, leaving her confused as to which one matched the listed condition.
She also complained that she was unable to see that one volunteer had had their appendix removed because, in her opinion, appendixes sometimes grow back. She said she was not able to compare her own diagnosis to an independent medical diagnosis after key experiments had been conducted, preventing her from being able to see if she was diagnosing genuine conditions that were unknown to those conducting the experiments, and which were thus being listed against her in the overall results despite them being valid (as a result of this complaint, all volunteers in the Tokyo experiments were required to bring medical certificates with them prior to diagnosis).
In response to these complaints, the research team stated that Demkina should have been able to find the plate without extrasensory abilities, because its outline could be seen beneath the subject's scalp, and questioned why the presence of scar tissue in a patient's throat had not alerted her to them having an esophagus condition. Additionally, they noted that it remains clinically impossible for an appendix to spontaneously regrow.[1][2][4]
Brian Josephson's criticism
In a self-published commentary regarding the New York testing performed by CSICOP and CSMMH, Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and the director of University of Cambridge's Mind-Matter Unification project, criticized the test and evaluation methods used by Hyman and questioned the researchers' motives, leveling the accusation that the experiment had the appearance of being "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."
Stating that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive", Josephson argued the odds of Demkina achieving four matches out of seven by chance alone were 1 in 50, or less than 2% - making her success rate a statistically significant result. He also argued that Hyman used a Bayes factor that was statistically unjustifiable because it greatly increased the risk of the experiment falsely recording a moderate correlation as being no correlation.[7][8]
Hyman responded that the high benchmark used in the testing was necessary due to the higher levels of statistical significance required when testing paranormal claims (extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof),[6][9] and that a high Bayes factor was necessary to compensate for the fact that "Demkina was not blindly guessing", but instead "had a great number of normal sensory clues that could have helped increase her number of correct matches".[10]
Bayes factors are used to compensate for variables that cannot be calculated through conventional statistics;[11][12] in this case, the variable created by the visual clues that Demkina might gather from observing a patient.[9] The Bayes factors used by Hyman were calculated by professors Persi Diaconis and Susan Holmes of the Department of Statistics at Stanford University.[9][13]
If some sensory cues remain despite attempts to exclude them, the possibility that correct diagnoses have been made by non-psychical means can never be completely ruled out. The question would remain as how many persons other than Natasha Demkina would be able to achieve such a success level, under the same conditions.
Tokyo
Después de visitar Nueva York, Demkina viajó a de la Universidad electrónica de Tokio (东京 电机 大学?) en Japón, a invitación del profesor Yoshio Machi, que estudia las reclamaciones de las inusuales habilidades humanas.[1]
Según las cuentas en su sitio web personal, después de sus experiencias en Londres y Nueva York, Demkina establecido varias condiciones para las pruebas, incluidos los que los pacientes traen consigo un certificado médico que acredite su estado de salud, y que el diagnóstico se limita a un simple específico parte del cuerpo - la cabeza, el torso o las extremidades - que iba a ser informados de antemano.[1] Reclamaciones web Demkina de que ella era capaz de ver que uno de los pacientes tenían una prótesis de rodilla, y que otro había colocado de forma asimétrica los órganos internos. También dice haber detectado las primeras etapas del embarazo en una paciente, y una curvatura de la columna ondulante en otro tema.[1]
Machi se encargó también de una prueba que tendrá lugar en una clínica veterinaria, donde se le pidió Demkina para diagnosticar una anomalía en un perro. Natasha afirma haber identificado correctamente que el perro tenía un dispositivo artificial en su pierna derecha después de haber sido dirigidos específicamente a mirar a las patas del animal.[1]
Al igual que con la prueba realizada en el Reino Unido, las pruebas de Tokio no fueron objeto de revisión independiente.
Notas
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i «Special Diagnostic Center of Natalya Demkina».
- ↑ a b c d e f g The Discovery Channel, 2004, The Girl with X-Ray Eyes, (Wayback Machine)
- ↑ a b c d The Guardian, 25 Sept 2004, "Visionary or fortune teller? Why scientists find diagnoses of 'x-ray' girl hard to stomach"
- ↑ a b c d Skolnick AA, Skeptical Inquirer, May 2005, "Testing Natasha: The Girl with Normal Eyes"
- ↑ a b c d Hyman R, Skeptical Inquirer, May 2005, "Testing Natasha"
- ↑ a b Hyman R, CSICOP, "Statistics and the Test of Natasha"
- ↑ Josephson, Brian. «Scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda purposes». Consultado el 31 de agosto de 2006.
- ↑ «Scientists fail to see eye to eye over girl's 'X-ray vision'». Times Higher Education Supplement. 10 de diciembre de 2004.
- ↑ a b c Hyman, Ray. «Statistics and the Test of Natasha». CSICOP. Consultado el 05-02-2010.
- ↑ Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH), "Answer to Critics"
- ↑ Mathworld Bayesian Analysis
- ↑ «Cause, Chance and Bayesian Statistics: A Briefing Document». Consultado el 11-09-2006.
- ↑ Hyman, Ray (Sept/October 2005). «Statistics of the Natasha test: response to concerns and questions». Skeptical Inquirer. Consultado el 02-02-2007.
Véase también
Enlaces externos
- [1] Artist Phillip Warnell made a film with Natasha Demkina in 2008
- The Girl With X-Ray Eyes at Museum of Hoaxes
- The Girl with "X-Ray" Vision at James Randi Educational Foundation Forum*
- Special Diagnostic Center of Natalya Demkina Official webpage of Natasha Demkina (In Russian. See also the English translation by PROMT Online Translator)
- The Demkina File at the website of the Association for Skeptical Investigations