Medium Colin Fry

[CFLarsen]

I don't know how long you have been studying the paranormal and associated phenomena, but I have been doing so since 1959 when I was 16 years old.

Over 40 years examining these matters convinces me to trust my subjective judgment, as I do in almost every other field of life on a daily basis.

Perhaps you have heard of Rene Blondlot, who thought he had found N-rays. He trusted his subjective judgment, too, and kept on believing for the rest of his life that N-rays exist. They don't.

Do you think it is possible that you can fool yourself, even for 40 years?

Unless you are claiming psychic abilities, let's wait and see when the report is published, shall we ?

Yeah, let's. What will your reaction be, if it shows no evidence of paranormal phenomena?

Regrettably your post, with its supercilious prejudging of the results of the testing Steve Grenard refers to, is a classic example of why many mediums are not prepared to cooperate with the sceptical community of which you are part.

Regrettably, this is a feeble - if classic - excuse. All it takes is one medium - one medium to show he/she is genuine, under proper controlled conditions.

It doesn't have to be with skeptics, all it takes is proper settings. This, we have yet to see happen. After millenia, not a single piece of evidence. No progress, no evidence. Nothing.

How long do you suggest we keep looking for something, until we admit that it is not there? Should we still look for unicorns?

 

[showme2]

CFL
Well, if we have been waiting for "millenia", 3 more months will hardly break anyone's back will it.

I find your closing remark very worrying.
How long have you been looking for UNICORNS ?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, if we have been waiting for "millenia", 3 more months will hardly break anyone's back will it.

Have you been listening at all? Are you ignoring this pattern that I described?

Do you really think that in 3 months, we will see definite evidence of a paranormal phenomenon?

I find your closing remark very worrying. How long have you been looking for UNICORNS ?

Why "worrying"? Could you address the questions?

• What will your reaction be, if it shows no evidence of paranormal phenomena?
• Have you heard of Blondlot?
• Do you think it is possible that you can fool yourself, even for 40 years?
• How long do you suggest we keep looking for something, until we admit that it is not there?
• Should we still look for unicorns?

I stopped looking for unicorns when it turned out nobody could find them. Can unicorns exist? Sure. Just show me one.

 

[showme2]

CFL
I find your closing remark very worrying. How long have you been looking for UNICORNS ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why "worrying"? Could you address the questions?

_________________________________________________
.
.
....... Yes, certainly:-

What will your reaction be, if it shows no evidence of paranormal phenomena?
.................. I will think, "Oh ◊◊◊◊, that's disappointing. Those damned sceptics must have fixed the result somehow" .... (Just as the sceptics will similarly accuse the believers if the result is not in their favour)
0000000000000000000000000000000000000

Have you heard of Blondlot?
....................... No, and I don't have time to look them up.
(I'm more into Eric Clapton myself !)
00000000000000000000000000000000000000

Do you think it is possible that you can fool yourself, even for 40 years?
........................ Absolutely not. My inquiries have always been extremely studious and commence from a sceptical standpoint. But I am not so irrevocably committed to a sceptical viewpoint that I will stick to it come what may. The true inquirer does not hold any view that he is not prepared to discard if a better one presents itself.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

How long do you suggest we keep looking for something, until we admit that it is not there?
........................ There's no need to keep looking once you've found it.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Should we still look for unicorns?
........................ I can't advise you. I've never looked for unicorns. But equally I can't say with any certitude that they have never existed. So if you want to keep looking for them, carry on, and let me know if you find one.
(But don't say "There are hundreds of them around. I see people riding them. But the non-believers have cut all their corns off so they look like horses.")
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000


I stopped looking for unicorns when it turned out nobody could find them. Can unicorns exist? Sure. Just show me one.
........................ You just inferred that you were still looking for them !
More seriously, and philosophically, just because you can't find one it doesn't prove they don't exist or have never existed. Perhaps you are not looking in the right place. Or they may have become extinct or evolved into something different. (A horse with a horn isn't that outrageous when you look at the appearance of some of the dinosaurs.)

But unicorns don't have any impact on my life, so I will stick to investigating the so-called paranormal.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
__________________

The major difference between us is that we disagree about what we will accept as "evidence".

 

[showme2]

Steve

>>>>>>>>
Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR. <<<<<<<<<<<

Interesting.
Do you have any additional info about this please ?

 

[geni]

Some 40 psychics/mediums have participated in and "passed" such a test conducted by Robertson and Roy in the U.K. This study will be published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR.

These researchers published a preliminary study, experience and outside critics as well as themselves found aspects of the test wanting, so they published a second paper detailing a revised methodology, and the third paper, using that methodology will be out as above. This is the kind of "experience" that is referred to here.
The odds against chance of the psychics/mediums obtaining the information they did over a range of anonymous random sitters, however, was huge. But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.

In three months the world may have change forever and I hope it does. Why do I have a feeling it may not have? Still all can do is wait for the paper.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Robertson and Roy's study has undergone rigorous peer review and the first two parts have been published in the peer reviewed journal of the British SPR (see below) with the third having completed peer review and awaiting publication in January 2004 issue of the JSPR. Abstracts of first two
studies appended below. You need to understand that this material has been presented on this forum before but is yelled and screamed at by the closed mindeds, then ignored and when fresh open minded people come they will not be appraised of this most elementary infomation. Which, of course, is related to Cancie's Complaint that people don't read up and prefer to be influenced by others rather than research such iimportant material themselves.

What is the SPR?

Founded in 1882 by a distinguished group of Cambridge scholars, the Society for Psychical Research was the first of its kind to examine allegedly paranormal phenomena in a scientific and unbiased way. Today the Society continues with its aim of understanding events and abilities commonly described as 'psychic' or 'paranormal' by promoting and supporting important research in this area. Through the publication of scholarly reports and the organisation of educational activities, it acts as a forum for debate and promotes the dissemination of information about current developments in the field. The interdisciplinary nature of the Society's subject matter is reflected in the interests of its former presidents, which include philosophers Henry Sidgwick, C.D. Broad, Henri Bergson and H.H. Price; Prime Minister A.J. Balfour; psychologists William James and F.W.H. Myers; physicists Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge and Lord Rayleigh; physiologist and Nobel Laureate Charles Richet; classicist Gilbert Murray; zoologist Sir Alister Hardy; and parapsychologist J.B.Rhine. (www.spr.ac.uk/ )

ASPR

Their sister group in America was founded 3 years later in 1885 with astronomer Simon Newcomb as president, later became a branch of the British Society for Psychical Research, founded in 1882, and functioned in Boston under the guidance of Richard Hodgson, formerly of Cambridge University, until his death in 1905. A newly-organized and independent ASPR was soon thereafter established in New York with James H. Hyslop, formerly Professor of Logic and Ethics at Columbia Unversity, as its secretary and treasurer. During the years between 1906 and his death in 1920, Professor Hyslop greatly expanded the scope of the Society's work. Publication of the Journal was initiated in 1907 and has continued uninterruptedly to the present.(http://www.aspr.com/)

The close relationship between psychic phenomena and important scientific and philosophical issues is evidenced by the fact that the investigation of such phenomena has enlisted the interest and active participation of a number of outstanding scientists and philosophers. Among the distinguished contributors of the past may be mentioned the physicists Sir William Barrett and Sir Oliver Lodge; the psychologists William James and Gardner Murphy, both of whom played major roles in the development of the ASPR. The contemporary scene in psychical research includes philosophers, psychologists and physicists, many of them on the faculty of distinguished universities and colleges here and abroad.
(http://www.aspr.com/)

This prior discussion on this forum recently occured here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...2&highlight=robertson+and+roy*#post1870123832


Robertson, T.J. & Roy, Archie E. A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE ACCEPTANCE BY NON-RECIPIENTS OF MEDIUMS' STATEMENTS TO RECIPIENTS, Journal 65, 2001, pp. 91-106. Authors' abstract: A test was made of the sceptical hypothesis that the statements made by mediums to recipients are so general that they could as readily be accepted by non-recipients. A two year study involving 10 mediums, 44 recipients and 407 non-recipients ostensibly falsified that hypothesis. The average fraction of the set of statements accepted by the recipient was significantly larger than the average fraction of the same set of statements accepted by non-recipients, the probability of the results being due to chance being 5.37x10-11 . Details are given of the procedure of data collection and analysis and an objective method of weighting the statements is described. A number of non-paranormal factors are listed and assessed as possible reasons for the seeming falsification of the hypothesis, /mental mediumship/survival/experiments/methodology/

Roy, Archie E. & Robertson, T.J. A DOUBLE-BLIND PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING THE RELEVANCE OF A MEDIUM'S STATEMENTS TO A RECIPIENT, Journal 65, 2001, pp. 161-74. Authors' abstract: In a previous study, it was shown that a significantly higher percentage of a set of statements given by a medium to a recipient was accepted by the recipient compared with the percentage of the same set accepted by non-recipients. A number of non-paranormal factors were identified that might diminish the large gap between the acceptability levels of recipients and non-recipients. In the present paper a hard protocol is described that may be used to assess the effect of each factor separately. The protocol's single, double and triple blind nature in testing each factor is discussed, /mental mediumship/survival/experiments/methodology/

----------------------------------------------
Actually if you study the annals of both the Journal of the SPR in Britain and its American counterpart you will find lots of studies confirming the validity of mediumship as well as numerous scientifically investigated case histories.
Alongside these you will also find investigations by well known skeptics such as Susan Blackmore and Richard Wiseman debunking claims of some psychics or paranormal claims of others; Wiseman also debunked the rope trick and attempted and somewhat suceeded in debunking ghost sounds in a haunted castle. Even James Randi had a rebuttal letter published in its pages recently.


Clearly, however Robertson and Roy, will exemplify one of the largest, most statistically significant and most carefully controlled of any experimental trials/evals of mediums in history. So yes, it is eagerly awaited.

 

[showme2]

Thanks a lot, Steve.

No doubt there will now be even more "yelling and screaming" from the closed-minded, but we can ignore that.

It's simply par for the course, after all.

 

[geni]

Thanks a lot, Steve.

No doubt there will now be even more "yelling and screaming" from the closed-minded, but we can ignore that.

It's simply par for the course, after all.

In three months time one of two things will happen:
Fristly we will be blown away by the evidence and the world of science will change for ever
Secondly the paper will not turn out as strong as you expect and the endless debate will continue

I suspect the second will hapen but then I'm biased.

When I can go into a lab and do something which proves you theory I will be 100% convinced. Untill then I'm going to ask why can't I do this?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Geni: In three months time one of two things will happen:


Firstly we will be blown away by the evidence and the world of science will change for ever


Secondly the paper will not turn out as strong as you expect and the endless debate will continue

I suspect the second will hapen but then I'm biased.

Answer: Agree with your first two paragraphs. I am glad to see you admit you are biased. Actually bias is a negative trait for any experiment including this kind of experiment. If you should have any sort of bias, it should be bias against bias.


Geni: When I can go into a lab and do something which proves you theory I will be 100% convinced. Untill then I'm going to ask why can't I do this?

Reply: These types of studies involve hard work by a team of persons, in this case 40 preselected mediums of little or no particular fame and enrollment of some 400 anon folks off the street to act as sitters and controls. Hardly an experiment you can walk into a lab and do on a benchtop. You can't do it right off because you need to design the experiment to falsify your hypothesis, set-it up, find the funding, conduct the trials and then subject the results to statistical anlysis. SO no, you can't walk into the lab and do this ...not unless you do the all of the above first. One of the favorite ploys of the close mindeds is to oversimplify a phenomenon, oversimplify what needs to be done to prove it (by so doing they are almost guaranteed to disprove it, thus confirming their bias) and learn as little as possible about it. Why let the facts get in the way of a good debunking, eh? Anyone who does science like this will do bad science. The problem with close mindeds is that they think this branch of science can be reduced to mixing substances in a test tube and observing a reaction. And when it can't be done they say: see, see, I told you.

In this field there are irreducible complexities which must be dealt with, not ignored or thrown out.

PS: I personally have no theories about this. I await this round of studies. My point in bringing them up is to help demonstrate once again Clancie's Complaint: that absence of evidence (in one's personal sphere of knowledge) is NOT, definitely NOT evidence of absence.

 

[geni]

Reply: These types of studies involve hard work by a team of persons, in this case 40 preselected mediums of little or no particular fame and enrollment of some 400 anon folks off the street to act as sitters and controls. Hardly an experiment you can walk into a lab and do on a benchtop. You can't do it right off because you need to design the experiment to falsify your hypothesis, set-it up, find the funding, conduct the trials and then subject the results to statistical anlysis. SO no, you can't walk into the lab and do this ...not unless you do the all of the above first.

This is valid as far as it goes.

One of the favorite ploys of the close mindeds is to oversimplify a phenomenon, oversimplify what needs to be done to prove it (by so doing they are almost guaranteed to disprove it, thus confirming their bias) and learn as little as possible about it.

Quantum theory is the most complex theory known to man ( with the posible exception of tax avoidence) but I could test a large propertion of this theory by going into the lap and taking the IR spectrum of CO gas. While I admit that the first results will come from the kind of study you are suggesting if the phernemon is real sooner or latter there will be a simple "benchtop" test

Why let the facts get in the way of a good debunking, eh? Anyone who does science like this will do bad science. The problem with close mindeds is that they think this branch of science can be reduced to mixing substances in a test tube and observing a reaction. And when it can't be done they say: see, see, I told you.
In this field there are irreducible complexities which must be dealt with, not ignored or thrown out.
Has it ever been clearly stated precisely what these irreducible complexities are?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Geni: Has it ever been clearly stated precisely what these irreducible complexities are?

Actually yes. By logician Stephen Braude, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

He actually calls it the "argument from crippling complexity"

Although Braude has explored this in a number of papers, it can be found both as defined as well as in example(s) in:

Braude, S.E. 2003. Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, New York and Oxford. pp. 329. index.

ISBN 0-7425-1472-2

on pages:

86-95, 98-9, 173, 182, 196, 213, 216-18, 222, 227, 283, 285, 305-6.


Even this argument cannot be reduced to a pop definition in 25 words or less which is the sort of demand we have come to expect from the close mindeds and cynics. In any case you might find an investment in the paperback version of the above reference worthwhile assuming your bias permits you to be seriously interested in the subject.

 

[geni]

Even this argument cannot be reduced to a pop definition in 25 words or less which is the sort of demand we have come to expect from the close mindeds and cynics. In any case you might find an investment in the paperback version of the above reference worthwhile assuming your bias permits you to be seriously interested in the subject.

I think I will try the libiary first.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Okay Geni. Here's the LCC in pub Catalogue information to help the librarian help you find it or maybe get it on inter-library loan for you. I gave the bibliographic info above.

BF1311.F8 73 2003
133.9'01'3--de21 2002036944

 

[thaiboxerken]

When this one hits the airwaves it will set the pseudoskeptical and cynical movement on it rear.

LOL. Yea, that's right. Just like Planet-X destroying the Earth, this claim has been made all too often to be taken seriously. I'll tell you what, SG, let's talk about the results of the test AFTER it is accepted into the scientific community as real evidence for mediumship. Right now, you are appealing to ignorance as being scientific evidence of mediumship.

The original "test" was found to have flawed protocols and is therefore rendered invalid.

 

[Clancie]

Hi Steve,

I just got the Braude book ("Immortal Remains") myself from bn ($25 paperback; $75 hardcover, if anyone's interested).

How do you feel it compares with Gauld?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I think Braude is more scientific, he uses the obvious faculty of logic as well as philosophy which Braude has and is much less wishy washy than Gauld who seems can't get off the fence. They both consider case histories, including the some of the same high profile ones, and analyze them. Braude often quotes predecessor Gauld when he finds it worthwhile or important. Some of Roy/Keen's high profile case list to Randi are explored in Braude. (20 best cases scenario).

I think that Braude supplants and replaces Gauld and is more heavily referenced and complete compared to Gauld. Braude reaches some DEFINITE conclusions which Gauld didnt seem to get around to such as the relationship between NDEs, OBEs and survival.

At any rate they complement each other and both complement FWH Myer's Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death which is admittedly a tough read (but a challenge as always) because of its Victorian language.

I don't think any cynic, closed minded skeptic or pseudoskeptic can truly debate these issues without thoroughly reading the positions which are embodied in these three books. There are many true skeptics and they are familiar with the evidence on both sides of the debate.


Keen, Schwartz, Robertson/Roy and a host of other investigators have been influenced by these writers. It is absurd to demean or denigrate Schwartz (e.g. Ed slandering him as a fraud) for example without understanding this and the influence of these authors on current research. In order, for example, for Ed (who should know better given his background and position) to slander somebody like Schwartz as a fraud, he would have to indict all these authors, all their references and all their research as well.

edited to add:

I just realized I never read any reviews of the new Braude book which is probably because its so new so after I wrote the above I checked to see if there were any online reviews and found just one which interestingly coincides in some respects with my own viewpoint. It's by a reader in Germany and can be found under the amazon.com entry for this book.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I don't think any cynic, closed minded skeptic or pseudoskeptic can truly debate these issues without thorughly reading the positions which are embodied in these three books.
Keen, Schwartz, Robertson/Roy and a host of other investigators have been influenced by these writers. It is absurd to demean or denigrate Schwartz (e.g. Ed slandering him as a fraud) for example without understanding this.

Which "cynic, closed-minded skeptics or pseudoskeptics" are you talking about?
As usual, you substitute insults for logic, fallacious logic for reasoning and generally have difficulty understanding that there are those of us who have been reading this pseudoscientific trash for years in the vain hope that there might be something other than fraud, trickery and a vast capacity for self delusion involved.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry Jeff, unlike you, Larson, Ed, etc I am not taken to insulting people HERE by name. No insult was intended. Surely you admit such cynics, and pseudoskeptics exist? Are you denying their existence?

I will critcise and insult authors, however such as Jaroff or Randi if I feel it is warranted by what they write.

Cynics and pseudoskeps should know who they are but probably do not. Closed mindeds are easily identified, some admitting to their biases.

So, to answer you question specifically: nope, won't go there. Unlike some people, I also do not slander others by name either or call them frauds. I am not rich and powerful enough to do that. After all for a mere hundred and twenty grand a year Ed can hire me to push pencils for him if he wishes. BTW Where do I apply?
And can I work at home?

added:

re-reading your comments above, I can now assume that "some" of you have read Gauld, Myers as well as the new Braude book? I applaud such skeptics for their wilingness to face the issues and to debate intelligently Do tell me if I am correct? Or are you referring to reading pulp in something like FATE magazine? Is this the reading material you refer to? If so, its like getting one's medical knowledge in Reader's Digest or the Star.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I applaud such skeptics for their wilingness to face the issues and to debate intelligently Do tell me if I am correct? Or are you referring to reading pulp in something like FATE magazine? Is this the reading material you refer to? If so, its like getting one's medical knowledge in Reader's Digest or the Star.

No. I'm talking about pseudoscientific journals, like The Noetic Journal.
Watson, Schwartz and Russek (1999) The Theory of Enformed Systems, A Paradigm of Organization and Holistic Systems, 2 (2). p. 159-172.
All you wanted to know about bad science and more.