Medium Colin Fry

[SteveGrenard]

Jeff:

If you wish to selectively cull some of the more out-there types of material, that's your privilege. In case you missed it, and I said this several times already, I refer to the studies, investigations and cases publshed in:

The (British) J of Soc Psychial Research (JSPR)

The J Amer Soc Psychial Research (JASPR)

Parapsychology (which I didnt mention but should have)

as well as the three book length sentinel works in this field:

Myers: Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death

Gauld: Mediumship and Survival

and now

Braude: Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death.

these in turn cover the sentinel work of Ian Stevenson, Emeritus Prof and Carlson Chair, Div of Personality Studies, Univ of Va. Stevenson was a past president of the (Brit) SPR and as well as the premier reincarnation researcher in the world. He also studied the interelatedness of this work with mediumship and survival which adds special significance to his work for mediumship and the survival hypothesis. Stevenson set out, as a psychiatrist, to study/investigate and even try to debunk claims of people who say they were reincarnated from prior lives they remember, which led him to consider such areas as drop-ins, posessions and mediumistic communication. I read and in fact own every monograph Stevenson has published and while this is a bit expensive for most, it definitely had an influence on how such cases should be investigated.

If for some reason you were not aware of these resources, consider yourself aware. Would you like me to post their websites as well so you can have more information? Maybe I will do it anyway. That way others can avail themselves of these resources even if you are reading the ION's Noetic Journal, an organization BTW which I resigned in protest from when they came out a few days after 9-11 calling for everyone to turn the other cheek. Please don't insult me and others here with that stuff.

Insofar as Schwartz is concerned, I have read his published papers in the JSPR and accept their validity. This does not mean myself or anyone should agree with everything he wrote in his popular book.

Posted also in a separate thread for emphasis:


Parapsychological Association (an affiliate of the AAAS) at:

www.parapsych.org


Society of Psychical Research (UK)

www.spr.ac.uk

American Society of Psychical Research

www.aspr.com

University of Virginia-Div of Personality Sudies (new website address BTW) at:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.ed...onalitystudies/

 

[espritch]

Showme2:

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.

Modern physics is founded on two important theories: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Relativity tells us that the mass increases and time slows down as the speed of an object increases, that gravity is a curvature in space-time, that stars can collapse to form black holes with gravity so powerful, even light cannot escape. Quantum Mechanics tells us a particle of matter can exist on one side of an object and suddenly pop right through to the other side (quantum tunneling), that two particles can become entangled so that when separated, if one if changed, the other will instantly reflect the same change regardless of the distance between them (the so called spooky effect), that the very behavior of sub-atomic particles is directly effected by observation.

These theories conflict in a big way with my day to day subjective observations of the world around me. My subjective experience would suggest that both theories are totally nuts. My subjective experience is irrelevant. Both theories have been repeatedly tested and retested for close to 100 years and no test devised has yet proved either theory to be incorrect. Subjective experience is useful in most day to day activities, but the more extraordinary a claim is, the less one should rely on subjective experience to determine it’s veracity. In fact, the most important experiments that have been conducted were ones that disproved assumptions based on subjective experience (like Gallileo’s disproof of Aristotle’s subjective assumption that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones).

SteveGrenard:

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.

So. Some psychics/mediums passed a test with a methodology that even the authors admit was flawed. How does this refute the claim that no psychics/mediums have passed a properly controlled test? Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been subjected to literally hundreds of tests and the tests themselves have been subject to tremendous scrutiny to verify that their methodology was proper and that they demonstrated what they were intended to demonstrate. And physicists are still devising ingenious new ways to try to disprove these theories.

But given the supposed methodological flaws, we now await the follow-up study with the revised methodology.

Since the experimenters themselves agreed that the initial studies were flawed, why do you refer to these flaws as “supposed”? I can pretty much guarantee that when the results of the revised test are published, if they show positive results, they will be subjected to even greater scrutiny and criticism than the original study. There will also be calls for replication of results and questions as to what the results actually demonstrate. This isn’t closed mindedness. It’s just how science is done. If you have a problem with that, your problem isn’t with narrow minded skeptics - it’s with the fundamental process of science itself.

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.

Just a comment. The above abstract indicates this experiment is not a test of whether mediums can actually speak with the dead, but rather a test of the supposed “skeptical hypothesis that statements made to recipients are so general that they could as readily be accepted by non-recipients.” This strikes me as a bit of a straw man. Most skeptics would agree that a generic newspaper horoscope is so general it could apply to anyone. However, they would not make such a claim about a cold reading. A good cold reader should be able to produce much more specific guesses. A cold reader starts with rather generic statements and then relies on feedback from the subject to develop more specific guesses. Unless the methodology employed in the experiment includes an effective means to prevent such feedback or account for it’s effect, the methodology will be inherently flawed.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Before predicting what the follow-up study concludes, it would be wise to wait for it. NO? Or are you so biased as to predict problems you have no way of knowing exist? These authors conducted one study, tightened up on the methodology to eliminate any supposed possible flaws and then re did a new series of cases. They even published the revised methodology as the second paper. They are honest and open minded.

Like everyone else you gotta wait until the Jan 04 issue of the JSPR arrives in our mailboxes or is made available online (which would be after publication for sure).

The negative correlation would be that people not read claim information as valid at the same or greater levels as those who are read. All the 400 subjects get to rate the information. Are you aware of the fact that you need to assess the positive correlates (the information that is given to sitters which is true ) in order to say whether the information for the non-sitters was less, the same or more valid than the read group? Is there something you don't understand about this which the authors may not have explained in their abstract? I guess you would have to read the complete paper if that's the case.

(See James Randi on Sylvia Browne proposal for a mickey mouse version of this design; Randi: 9 non read and 1 read=total statistically insignificant number of 10 people).

I agree with your quantum physics example for more testing We need the funding and interest to conduct thousands of experiments in this field... of all types and designs.

 

[geni]

Quantum Mechanics tells us a particle of matter can exist on one side of an object and suddenly pop right through to the other side (quantum tunneling), that two particles can become entangled so that when separated, if one if changed, the other will instantly reflect the same change regardless of the distance between them (the so called spooky effect), that the very behavior of sub-atomic particles is directly effected by observation.

A minor piont but is the particles did not behave like that the microchips in you computer would not work and evey time you struck a match you would get sprayed by gammer rays.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Jeff:If you wish to selectively cull some of the more out-there types of material, that's your privilege.

Yes, that "out there" reference was provided by someone who was going to a lecture by Dean Radin a while back. Remember?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Radin's book The Conscious Universe is an excellent resource and review as well but not for mediumship or survival.
Thank you for reminding me about it.
It does not, however, address the survival hypothesis in any depth or meaningful way and is more concerned with exceptional human performance and psi effects such as telepathy. Radin runs in a whole different sphere than that which we are talking about here. The only relationship between telepathy between living organisms and mediumship is the hypothesis that mediums obtain information, either from living or deceased sources, via telepathy as well. In the former case this is referred to as the super psi or super ESP hypothesis and is offered as a cause for mediumistic information by people who do not believe the consciousness of those who physically die survives in any manner.

Red herrings aside, I have provided you with the websites of the organizations, individuals and publications which provide in the secular modern, as well as historical sense, the most compelling evidence for survival and mediumship.
I trust you will make some use of them.

 

[espritch]

Before predicting what the follow-up study concludes, it would be wise to wait for it. NO? Or are you so biased as to predict problems you have no way of knowing exist?

Assuming this was a response to my previous post, where exactly am I claiming to predict anything? The last paragraph merely pointed out a potential problem based on the abstract provided that would need to be closely examined when such results are published. That’s why I presented this as a side comment rather than as part of my basic argument.

I agree like your quantum physics example we need the funding and interest to conduct thousands of experiments in this field of all types and designs.

Thousands of experiments? No. What you need is a single experiment with a methodology that holds up under strict scrutiny, that is replicable, and clearly demonstrates that there is a phenomenon here worthy of further investigation. An experiment of this sort would be one that would clearly falsify a specific phenomenon if it fails, not just one that would falsify an alternative hypothesis (the intent, according to the abstract, of the previously discussed experiment). It would also help if someone could devise a valid theoretical basis for such phenomena - something that preceded experimental evidence for both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics – although this is not essential (theory may follow observation so long as it makes further predictions that can be tested by further observation).

If you can design and conduct such an experiment, and the experiment doesn’t fail, I suspect that you would have no problem getting funding for further research. Heck, perform the experiment for Randi and you've got a million bucks for further research right there.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Ah the old pseudoskeptic ploy: a single experiment. Thats all it would take No, I am afraid not. A single experiment is not statistically significant which is why I agreed with your comparison to the experimental numbers in QP exercises.


A single experiment, if flawed or if perpetrated by a hoaxer or by a non-proficient so-called medium will fail. This is why we need to look at the entire body of evidence, thousands of experiences -- hundreds certainly. Some will be chalked up to fraud, hoaxes, and incompetence. This is NOT as simple or the same as shining a laser light through a jewel or mixing two substances in a test tube. In order to validate in the cognitive sciences larger numbers than 1 are required. Randi knows this so that why his 1 sitter, 9 non-sitters and a single medium (Browne) is mickey mouse. It proves nothing. Browne can be a fake, be real, be having a bad day. The non-sitters can be ringers (he selected them all by the way from responses to his decidedly skeptical website); controlling 9 people and a single sitter would be easy to fake, controlling 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls would be infinitely more difficult. This is what people who suggest the single experiment thesis are afraid of: real results.

If Robertson and Roy rely on one medium and one sitter and one control, it could all be a sham or fail because of many rasons. A large number of trials separates the wheat from the chaf. All can and should be reported but then the statistics supporting the positive and negative outcomes analyzed and broken out separately as well as averaged together. If you had four fake mediums and four proficient ones you could ruin the test. If you had 4 sitters with amnesia or who were colluding and four who were honest you could also skewer your results. Hundreds of trials minimizes such effects. We are not talking here about single claimants or personalities, but the process as a whole.

 

[thaiboxerken]

controlling 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls would be infinitely more difficult. This is what people who suggest the single experiment thesis are afraid of: real results.

I'm sure Randi could do such a test. If these "scientists" are so sure of their results, maybe they can replicate it for the JREF challenge. What are they afraid of?

 

[espritch]

Ah the old pseudoskeptic ploy: a single experiment. Thats all it would take No, I am afraid not.

You have no doubt heard about the test performed during a solar eclipse in 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington, where he measured the bending of the light of a star by the Sun’s gravity. This single experiment was a defining moment for Relativity. Had this observation differed in any significant degree from the predictions, Mr. Einstein would have been forced to go back to the drawing board and Relativity could well have ended up as just another footnote in the big book of failed theories. Of course that single experiment was not in itself enough to prove that Relativity is correct. That is why it was tested again and again and again.

A single experiment cannot definitively prove a claim, but a successful experiment can show that there is something there worth looking into farther. On the other hand, if you can’t devise even one experiment to effectively test your claim, you certainly shouldn’t expect anyone else to waste their time trying to do it for you.

A single experiment is not statistically significant which is why I agreed with your comparison to the experimental numbers in QP exercises.

A single experiment can most certainly be statistically significant, provided it involves enough data points. You do of course realize that all QP experiments are, by definition, statistical. QP isn’t accepted because it passed some meta-analysis of the experiments conducted to test it. It is accepted because it passed every individual experiment thrown at it.

A single experiment, if flawed or if perpetrated by a hoaxer or by a non-proficient so-called medium will fail.

Are you saying you don’t have any way to weed out hoaxers and non-proficient so-called mediums? Then why do you believe that any of them are legitimate? Why should we?

Yes. A single experiment could fail for many reasons. It’s the job of the experimenter to consider those possibilities and design an experiment that avoids those problems so the proposition being tested passes or fails purely on it own merits. If this cannot be done, that should tell you something.

Science is a Darwinian process where observation is the final arbiter of survival. Every theory or claim is one clever experiment away from destruction and only the fittest survive. The goal of the experimental scientist is not to support your pet theory but rather to try to rip it’s entrails out and leave it drowning in a pool of its own blood. It can be a harsh experience for those who are emotionally invested in a certain theory or view of reality, but it’s the only effective way to separate reality from nonsense.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Again, the cognitive sciences is not QP and it is not bending light. Light bends, we know that when we see it peeking in from around a drawn down set of blinds.

The experiment could be a singular design and Robertson and Roy did that. They have settled on one experiment in that sense. They decided to apply it to multiple mediums, sitters and controls. The statistics will tell the tale and when the paper is published we will have those. Having seen how Randi treated Schwartz, I know for a fact that neither they nor anyone in this field will ever make the mistake Schwartz did by even talking to the man. And yes, I am sure everyone can use the money but is not winnable and enduring Randi's type of invective and ridicule isn't worth finding that out. End of story. Let's not go there, its been rehashed a dozen times here and everywhere.

Everybody is looking for the white crow but as the Rousseaus asked in their paper on c-far is the white crow really what we are after? And is there more than one? Yes. Rare yes, unique, no.

What is a white crow good for? : The Significance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for the Philosophy of Parapsychology. (David and Julie Rousseau, 2001)
Paper delivered at the 25th International Conference of the SPR, Cambridge University, UK, 14-16 September 2001

(Right now the only white crow I know is Jeff Corey. )

Can part of the design rely on a pre-vetting of the mediums? Certainly they should have a proven track record, testimonials if you will. By participating it was time for them to put up or shut up. But if certain mediums achieve scores of 100% whereas others barely reach chance then you can see what I mean. We are not dealing with physics or chemistry and you cannot compare them. The social sciences are just not that predictable. The light will always bend if directed in a certain way but a medium doesn't always get the information that is expected or predicted. Its the way it is which is why I guess this work interests mainly psychologists and philosophers and no chemists, biologists or some very few physicists.

This is not a hard science so all your analogies are meaningless in this context. Small sample sizes just won't cut it. Randi knows this (see Sylvia Browne challenge) and I suspect unless they are parroting others, those who suggest attempting to find the so-called white crow (which is really what the challenege is all about) doesn't cut it either. Randi backed out of allowing the Schwartz HBO experiments apply for the prize because I surmise he sat down with some statistical advisors and they figured out there was just a little too much statistically significant data to try and impeach.

 

[espritch]

Again, the cognitive sciences is not QP and it is not bending light. Light bends, we know that when we see it peeking in from around a drawn down set of blinds.

Strictly speaking, that is a result of scattering, refraction, and reflection and bears no relation to the kind of bending observed by Eddington. But never mind. It really isn’t germane to the discussion at hand. What is germane is whether cognitive science should be held to the same standards of proof as other branches of science. Any real science must have some generally agreed upon standards of evidence. Any real science should provide means of testing a hypothesis and falsifying it. If cognitive science has these tools, then you should be able to apply them to the question of mediumship. If not, why call it a science?

The experiment could be a singular design and Robertson and Roy did that. They have settled on one experiment in that sense. They decided to apply it to multiple mediums, sitters and controls. The statistics will tell the tale and when the paper is published we will have those.

Agreed, but as I already noted, the experiment in question doesn’t try to test the proposition that mediums can talk to the dead. It only tries to test an alternate explanation supposedly offered by skeptics. Disproving an alternate hypothesis is not equivalent to proving your own.

Having seen how Randi treated Schwartz, I know for a fact that neither they nor anyone in this field will ever make the mistake Schwartz did by even talking to the man. And yes, I am sure everyone can use the money but is not winnable and enduring Randi's type of invective and ridicule isn't worth finding that out. End of story.

I don’t know how Randi treated Schwartz so I’m not going to argue the point. This still doesn’t absolve those claiming mediums have the power speak to the dead of the burden of providing credible testable evidence of that claim.

Everybody is looking for the white crow but as the Rousseaus asked in their paper on c-far is the white crow really what we are after? And is there more than one? Yes. Rare yes, unique, no.

I’m not sure what this means. All I’m looking for is credible evidence. I do, however, whince anytime someone brings up Godel’s Theorem. This has to be the most singularly abused theorem in the history of math.

Can part of the design rely on a pre-vetting of the mediums? Certainly they should have a proven track record, testimonials if you will. By participating it was time for them to put up or shut up. But if certain mediums achieve scores of 100% whereas others barely reach chance then you can see what I mean.

Well, if certain mediums achieve scores of 100%, I’d probably concentrate my efforts on devising tests for those mediums as opposed to the ones scoring no better than chance. But that’s just me. In any event, I’m not the one making the claim that mediums can talk to the dead. You are. If you are having a difficult time finding evidence to support the claim, that ought to tell you something.

The social sciences are just not that predictable. The light will always bend if directed in a certain way but a medium doesn't always get the information that is expected or predicted.

Are social sciences science? Do social scientists make hypothesis. Do they have methods they employ to test and falsify these hypothesis? If so, should they not be able to apply those methods to mediums? If not, why call it science?

This is not a hard science so all your analogies are meaningless in this context.

Is it a science at all? If so, my analogies apply. They deal with basic concept of what science is. If these ideas apply equally well to the large scale structure of the universe and the tiniest sub atomic particles, they should certainly apply to mediums. Special pleading doesn’t carry much weight with anyone on this forum.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The word science conveys nothing special to the study of cognitive abilities other than its original meaning which is "knowledge" related. Ditto for the appellated social sciences. You can construct hypotheses, devise and validate tests or surveys, profiles and questionnaires, self-reported and clinical case histories, objectified ratings scales, all of which can be used to falsify them and apply statistical models to problems in the social sciences. They are still not the same as the physical sciences......by their very definition and because they are defined and comprised of vastly different elements. Anybody with a nick name such as MemeHacker should surely be able to recognize this and back it up.

Are you making the rules here regarding what is or isn't science and further determining that anything using that word has to conform to a common standard? If that is the case there is nothing more to discuss. You will spend the rest of your days running around in circles chasing an elusive tail that does not even exist.

edited to add:

\Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,
p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. {Conscience}, {Conscious},
{Nice}.]
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained
truth of facts.

If we conceive God's sight or science, before the
creation, to be extended to all and every part of
the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his
science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity
on anything to come to pass. --Hammond.

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental
philosophy. --Coleridge.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Espritch: Agreed, but as I already noted, the experiment in question doesn’t try to test the proposition that mediums can talk to the dead. It only tries to test an alternate explanation supposedly offered by skeptics. Disproving an alternate hypothesis is not equivalent to proving your own.


Response: I don't know the exact numbers and how they will be diviied up in the upcoming publication, but I will throw out some nmbers for the sake of example only.

There are 40 mediums and 400 sitters and controls. The 40 mediums will each provide readings under controlled conditions (they wont see the sitter and they cannot hear the sitter) to 5 sitters or 200 people. These readings will be rated by the sitters for accuracy. The 200 people not read (but don't know that -- everyone thinks they will have been read) will be asked to rate the readings of the 200 people who are actually read thinking they were for them.

This supplies the investigators with a plethora of data which ultimately will
do two things:

1. Resolve the accuracy of the readings for those actually read.

2. Determine the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy for those NOT read. If the readings are highly accurate for those not read one can conclude that these mediums achieved their ends through generalization cold readings. They will not be able to hot, cold or warm read any other way since the sitters will be anonymous, assigned by random drawings, and be securely separated from the medium, providing no opportunity for feedback, verbal or visual.

Other data and data streams can also be constructed. We have to await the paper for the complete study.

I trust from the above brief description you can also see why this cannot be reduced to an experiment in light bending or chemistry.

 

[Loki]

Steve,

I realsie you comments are mostly just snide remarks aimed at Randi, but...

Small sample sizes just won't cut it. Randi knows this (see Sylvia Browne challenge)
...
Randi knows this so that why his 1 sitter, 9 non-sitters and a single medium (Browne) is mickey mouse. It proves nothing. Browne can be a fake, be real, be having a bad day.

I can't really see anyway in which you wouldn't already know this, but I'll lay it out just to be sure.

The JREF Challenge *is* a scientifically conducted/controlled test. The JREF Challenge *is not* scientific research into the paranormal. The purpose of the challenge is not to establish the truth or otherwise of any "paranormal" theory. It's not Ganzfeld research, and doesn't claim to be. It's not a search for a white crow. It's exactly what it says it is - a simple "show me" situation.

Glad you brought up the Sylvia example. You're quite right. If the JREF Challenge was supposed to be asking (and answering) the question "Is mediumship real?" then the protocol that Randi outlined is terrible - essentially useless. But that's condemning the Challenge for being something it never claims to be!

The Sylvia example shows the Challenge as it actually is - in this case, it's asking the question "Can Sylvia Browne reliably produce results above chance"? You say "It proves nothing. Browne can be a fake, be real, be having a bad day." Well, you're wrong. It proves exactly what it sets out to prove. You see, Sylvia was asked, directly "can you pass this test?" She answered "yes". The Challenge sets out to test that answer by Sylvia. The test unambiguously answers the question - if she passes, then she's right. If she fails, then she's wrong.

Either way, a test of Sylvia doesn't prove (if she passes) or disprove (if she fails) anything about mediumship. But that's not the point - it seeks *only* to test Sylvia's own claims. She agreed she can do it. Randi simply asks her to actually do so.

Personally, the only reason I can see why anyone with a "paranormal" ability would refuse the JREF test would be because their control of that ability was wildly, uncontrollably, erratic. If it was that erratic, I'm not sure why they (or anyone else) would be so sure it either exists, or is what it appears to be.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Loki:

Dont disagree with a single thing you say but please get real. Randi ridicules claimants ad nauseum. His rules make it unwinnable. He is judge, jury and executioner. There is NOW no judging. He can't be sued and he owns your ass. It is the most ridiculous contest imagineable. Its a farce. Anybody who applies is a fool or an idiot. And that includes SB for agreeing to the stupid proposal he foisted on her. She should've said she would get back to him before agreeing. I dont care about the challenge, would be happy to never mention it again but others keeping regurgitating it in conversation any chance they get. This forces me to cover the same reasons, the same ground over and over again until people who don't get it, er, get it. Randi will never accept a 440 person study of mediumship just like he backed out of accepting Schwartz's study. I am surprised he isn't sued more often.

I know this because Randi is a stage act and he is looking for "claimants" for white crow status he can ridicule in his books, lectures, magazine and web columns. He is like a comedien who constantly needs new material. Otherwise he is forced to revisit Geller for all eternity. A study using 5 or 40 mediums doesn't work into his format.

Is there a commission program out there if you sign up people which I am missing out on or something like that?


Who got him the Yellow Bamboo?

I know an ex- MC Drill Sergeant who could knock you over by yelling at you. Just one guy, not a whole cadre of martial arts fighters from Indonesia. Should he apply? Is this paranormal? How much do I get for signing him up?

 

[CFLarsen]

His rules make it unwinnable. He is judge, jury and executioner. There is NOW no judging.

This is patently false. And you know it.

The rules have to be agreed upon by both parties together. There is no judging, the numbers should speak for themselves.

Randi will never accept a 440 person study of mediumship just like he backed out of accepting Schwartz's study.

(cough) Do you read what you write, Steve? Do you really think that Randi should merely "accept" Schwartz' study without being able to freely investigate it?

He can't be sued and he owns your ass.
...
I am surprised he isn't sued more often.

Steve, go to bed. You are incoherent.

 

[Loki]

Steve,

We actuallyagree about quite a bit here!

Except for...

Randi ridicules claimants ad nauseum. His rules make it unwinnable. He is judge, jury and executioner. There is NOW no judging. He can't be sued and he owns your ass. It is the most ridiculous contest imagineable. Its a farce. Anybody who applies is a fool or an idiot.

Totally disagree, Steve. Randi has made a rod for his own back if you can provide a solid claimant. The power of the media won't let Randi survive if he attempted what you claim.

Look, it happened only two months ago here in Australia. The local top rating current affairs program (A Current Affair) arranged for a local "psychic healer" to take the Australian Skeptics $100,000 challenge. Both parties agreed to a simple blinded protocol. The show arranged for the test via a lcoal university. Then the skeptics backed out. The healer claimed victory, the show savaged the skeptics. The end result? - the Australian skeptics were made to look like fools and/or cowards, and the healer was a clear media event winner!! Of course, the healer then agreed to take the test anyway for the show (no $100,000 on the line) and promptly failed!!

So why did the skeptics back out? Well, when the healer failed the test, he was asked "why?" His answer - that the people he had tried to heal had actually been healed but had "not yet felt the effects of his healing" or alternatively he claimed that his "healing energies" may have "bounced around the room" and hit the wrong people.

This is precisely why the skeptics had backed out. They orignally agreed to test the healer, but once they got down to deciding what constituted "success" or "failure" the healer wanted to claim as success any healing by any participant over any time period as being due to "his powers". This is a ridiculuous claim, and completely untestable. So the skeptics withdrew the offer because the healer wanted an open-ended test.

The point of all this? Simply that this was a win for the healer, even though he failed to demonstrate any ability at all! Now, imagine the same scenario - skeptics issue challenge, challenger agrees, skeptics withdraw offer, challenger goes ahead and passes test! Are you seriously suggesting that Randi's credibility could survive such a scenario?

I'll make you an offer. You find a "paranormal talent" that can perform clearly above chance. Work out the protocol, make sure the talent works. I'll put together a deal with a media outlet for a TV special "Psychic Showdown", and we'll put the invite to Randi. If he refuses to put the money up against our simple protocol, we'll do the test live on TV and effectively end his reputation. If he puts the money up, we'll end his reputation and collect the million. How about it?

 

[CFLarsen]

The point of all this? Simply that this was a win for the healer, even though he failed to demonstrate any ability at all!

I came across a similar case last night (oh, baby, what a night - much more about that later! ). A dowser insisted that 18 years ago, he had been tested by "some skeptics" who had to "admit" that he passed the test.

When I asked who these skeptics were (because I wanted to investigate it), you know what he answered?

He couldn't remember, because it was 18 years ago! When I asked him how on earth I was going to check his claim, he shrugged and didn't feel it was necessary to investigate. All I had to do was believe him!

These people will claim victory, while leaving out some - shall we say "crucial" information. Like, in reality, they didn't succeed.

They bank on people forgetting. Which is why we must make sure to keep the records...

 

[showme2]

1019

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clancie
lol, I think some of what I've seen from JE is indistinguishable from cold reading (but that not -all- of it can be accounted for that way).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RonSceptic replied:

And of course none of it is indistinguishable from what can be achieved by hot reading.

So it boils down to opinion. Is it more likely that a skilled perfromer has mastered the art of cold reading, with occassional assists via hot reading, or that dead people turn up on cue at in TV studios to give out vaugue hints about what letter their names start with?

......................................................................................................

You don't even need to CONSIDER warm or hot reading.

Regrettably, I am forced to agree with RonSceptic here.
The dead turning up and giving "hints" about who they are by revealing the first letter of their name fails to convince anyone.
And when it is Michael Marcel Mabel or Mirabelle it gets ridiculous.

I have watched Edward - and Van Praagh - for a long time on TV (an EDITED environment, remember) and neither would convince anyone with any common sense.

Here is a verbatim demonstration of why ....

JVP: "Has your husband passed over?"

Subject : "Yes"

JVP : "Yes, because he is saying to me "I'm her husband, I'm her husband .... "

Yeah right, do us a favour ! !

I agree that MOST of what John Edward produces appears to be Cold Reading, and that ALL of what James Van Praagh produces appears to be Cold Reading.

But you only need one white crow, and Colin Fry is that crow.