Mrs. Piper Mediumship Discussion

[Darat]

Darat,

I just found out that the Boston Public Library says they have a run of SPR publications back to the earliest issues. If I have a chance today I'll go there and do some reading. I find it easier to read lengthy things in hard copy rather than online.

Mike

That would be fantastic - thanks for even considering it.

 

[Clancie]

Hi Mike,

I like what you've said above and hope you don't mind that I wanted to list it out just for emphasis. I think these are all important and, would only add that the information produced does not seem consistent with what we would expect from cold reading (again, a judgment call...as is, imo, making the distinction between super-psi and mediumship for a given medium).

Posted by Mike D

If one comes to feel that

• conscious fraud is unlikely with a given medium, and
  
• anomalous cognition could possibly exist and
  
• the medium is producing impressive information

then I think that one is inevitably forced to consider some of the ideas I discussed above.

re: overshadowing. At the moment, I tend to favor this explanation for controls, as it is also consistent with the communication process described by mental mediums--bits and pieces of information telepathically coming through that must be synthesized either by a conscious process (mental mediumship) or subconscious one (trance medium/control). Of course, if one accepts the premise of anomalous cognition....even accepts that spirit communication may be occurring...I still think we have to distinguish between super-psi information and spirit communication...again, probably at this point relegated to an individual judgment call based on one's understanding of a reading and the most likely meaning/source of the validated information.

 

[Mike D.]

Mike D.,

That is a loooot of assumptions....

People are on very thin ice, when they begin inventing more and more complex explanations, instead of accepting that these purported mediums do not give anything else than what we expect from a cold reader and/or a psychic at a fair. I do therefore not agree that it is even worth the time considering these very convoluted explanations.

Add to that, I find the research to be sloppy, unprofessional and full of fraud and incompetence. This does not give me the greatest confidence in the researchers' abilities to prevent fraud.

I am actually somewhat disappointed with Mrs. Piper. This is nothing like what was promised.

Is this really the best?? Come on, after more than a hundred years?

Claus,

Actually, very little information about Mrs. Piper has been presented in this thread, compared to the large amount of information about her that exists.

What original research on Mrs. Piper have you studied that you find to be "sloppy, unprofessional and full of fraud and incompetence?"

Mike

 

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was speaking generally of paranormal research. We also see e.g. Sheldrake and Schwartz invent more and more complex explanations, and we've also been through their less-than-impressive abilities to set up proper controls.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I was talking to this woman on msn messenger about 3am this morning. I mentioned I was reading this University parapsychology text book, and she said oooooh that she wouldn't fancy reading it because she's frightened of the dark!

I really need to find some more appropriate msn buddies to communicate with! LOL

 

[CFLarsen]

I was talking to this woman on msn messenger about 3am this morning. I mentioned I was reading this University parapsychology text book, and she said oooooh that she wouldn't fancy reading it because she's frightened of the dark!

I really need to find some more appropriate msn buddies to communicate with! LOL

You need to stop drinking.

 

[Darat]

Hi Darat,
Sorry I'm a little rushed this a.m. so I'll address your other observations a little later. But, yes, I can clear up the issue of editing that you noticed.

Again thanks for the work. Looking at your re-typed transcript I'm even more confused. Was it Piper saying "He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'." or was that the recorder, recording that Piper described the little girl but the recorder didn't take the details down? Mike has said he might be able to check it if he gets the time, any chance you could do the same?

And yes I am being cheeky and a bit of skinflint but this editing or not recording all the details is a very important point as it goes to the heart of whether we can even begin to consider these transcripts evidence of anything.

And, yes, I also wondered if they'd brought various items with them (sounded like it). I think it wasn't so much the special hits (which as you mention is mainly hits on names in this excerpt at least, or perhaps the feeling of personality that she was able to bring through (an important feature to the sitter, but one not easily quantified and measured).

But -if- you accept that hot reading and fraud were ruled out (and there was no evidence of cheating in the 27 years she was studied), Mrs. Piper's readings seemed to give very good indication of anomalous cognition.

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud, albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.

Whether better explained as mediumship or super-psi might be a harder judgment call, imo, but I think what I know of her work appears quite compelling (as trance mediums generally seem. Her style of reading and Mrs. Walsh, whom Steve saw, both offered specific information to anonymous sitters that is not as easy to dismiss as "cold reading", imo).

Well let’s see if this transcript stands up to a reasonable scrutiny for whether it shows signs of editing or non-recording of details.

So far I certainly don't find this compelling evidence that someone can communicate with the dead, I'm quite surprised you do.

 

[Mike D.]

That would be fantastic - thanks for even considering it.

Darat,

I called the Boston Public Library back and they now tell me that the volume is offsite, so I asked them to call it back. They said it will be there Monday afternoon, and they will hold it there for a week for me. So I will go look at it as soon as I can.

Mike

 

[Mike D.]

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud, albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.

Darat,

I think the only way to approach whether Mrs. Piper engaged in conscious fraud is to look at what safeguards against fraud the investigators had in place in each case. And then come to an assessment of how likely or unlikely it was that she was able to commit fraud given the safeguards employed.

Mike

 

[Interesting Ian]

You need to stop drinking.

Huh?? I haven't been drinking.

 

[Darat]

Hi Mike,

I like what you've said above and hope you don't mind that I wanted to list it out just for emphasis. I think these are all important and, would only add that the information produced does not seem consistent with what we would expect from cold reading (again, a judgment call...as is, imo, making the distinction between super-psi and mediumship for a given medium).

I wouldn't get caught up in a belief that somehow "cold reading" as we all know it and love it is the only explanation apart from real mediumship that could explain how a medium seemingly communicates with the dead.

re: overshadowing. At the moment, I tend to favor this explanation for controls, as it is also consistent with the communication process described by mental mediums--bits and pieces of information telepathically coming through that must be synthesized either by a conscious process (mental mediumship) or subconscious one (trance medium/control). Of course, if one accepts the premise of anomalous cognition....even accepts that spirit communication may be occurring...I still think we have to distinguish between super-psi information and spirit communication...again, probably at this point relegated to an individual judgment call based on one's understanding of a reading and the most likely meaning/source of the validated information.

This begins to get very convoluted. How come the mediums don’t know what they are doing, are these trances involuntary?

This "super-psi" v. "spirit communication" seems to have explanatory strength e.g. any possible combination of success or failure of a medium to do what she or he claims they can do can be accommodated however it has no predictive strength e.g. we can’t rule any result out! With that in mind what is the point of doing any experiments since you can never put any controls in place and when any result can support your theory?

 

[Darat]

Darat,

I think the only way to approach whether Mrs. Piper engaged in conscious fraud is to look at what safeguards against fraud the investigators had in place in each case. And then come to an assessment of how likely or unlikely it was that she was able to commit fraud given the safeguards employed.

Mike

I understand your point but I do have to disagree (especially with such old records and cases) as it would be hard to spot fraud from the records we have if the investigators didn't see evidence of fraud at the time. I do agree however if extensive safeguards that appear watertight are reported to be in place then the assumption that fraud is less likely to have happened is a reasonable starting assumption.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Was it Piper saying "He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'." or was that the recorder, recording that Piper described the little girl but the recorder didn't take the details down?

Well, that's why I reformatted it and tried to make clear who was speaking when I typed it here. Its clearer in the book. Also, as I mentioned before, Gauld says, "It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks and gesticulates on behalf of the child communicator; she does not 'control' herself. The annotations in square brackets are by Mrs. Sutton."

Mike has said he might be able to check it if he gets the time, any chance you could do the same?

What am I checking for? I'm confused.

The first way I typed it was my effort to reformat it so that you can see who is talking. The second is as Gauld wrote it in the book. Except for a careless error (and, as I mentioned before, intentionally leaving out the song lyrics) there's really no difference between the two transcripts. The first one, if nothing else, makes it clear who seems to be speaking, acting out, etc. as I read it in the book. That was the sole reason I reformatted it, for clarity.

So...ummm...What was the question? I can't think of anything else to add.

And yes I am being cheeky and a bit of skinflint but this editing or not recording all the details is a very important point as it goes to the heart of whether we can even begin to consider these transcripts evidence of anything.

Well, other than a careless error and the song lyrics (which I was just too lazy to type) I -did- record all the details. I merely reformatted it to try to clarify for you what was more obvious in a printed text than it would be online. I didn't "edit" it....although I agree that the ellipses (which I left in in both of my type-ups) indicate that Gauld did. Nevertheless, as I say, she was studied for 27 years. No short excerpt of her work, no matter how complete, is going to be all that compelling taken apart from the exhaustive studies of -all- of her documented readings that were done. Its the patterns of consistency...with no evidence of fraud...that have impressed people like Braude and Gauld.

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud, albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.

No, I don't see that that follows that what appears to be anomalous cognition must instead be thought of as most likely being fraud that was never detected.

And that other mediums have been detected as frauds is irrelevant, imo, to Mrs. Piper. We know there are frauds, but that hardly proves that every medium is a fraud....or even makes it the most likely explanation for apparent anomalous cognition.

There have also been other mediums who evidenced (at a minimum) abilities that seemed more consistent with anomalous cognition than any other explanation--and, like Piper, they were also not found fraudulent. I do not think we can just dismiss people's work as being "most likely fraudulent" when absolutely no indication of fraud is found.

Well let’s see if this transcript stands up to a reasonable scrutiny for whether it shows signs of editing or non-recording of details.

Well, yes, but also you'll want to look at the entire reading to see if it shows patterns of specific information being given to the sitter that the medium would not have known, or been likely to correctly guess.

So far I certainly don't find this compelling evidence that someone can communicate with the dead,

Well, I'm not surprised. Its not a transcript (or excerpted transcript) that impresses people about Piper, Darat. Its the consistency of her body of work, the patterns that were seen in 27 years of studying her. There are hundreds of SPR pages documenting research into her work; I never expected one small excerpt to sway you to believing in her abilties at all. That wasn't the purpose for posting it.

And as for my comment to TLN recommending her....I think if someone -does- want to look at a compelling medium, then they should read whatever they can about Piper (and, yes, I never said one transcript snippet would do the job. I only provide it because...I can...I assume if he's really interested in the answer to his question...and now has a name recommended to him...that he would go look at the extensive materials available documenting Piper's work (or at least the authors who've written about her) if, as I assume, his question reflected genuine interest in having some in-depth knowledge of a medium who is considered one of the most compelling. If he didn't know one to look into, then now he has the name of one of the most respected (and someone whose work is well documented over a long period of time).

With that in mind what is the point of doing any experiments since you can never put any controls in place and when any result can support your theory?

Actually, I think it would be better for experiments to focus on things that -can- be measured, for example, apports or brain waves during trance. I doubt that the subjectivity of actual readings can ever be eliminated to the extent needed for an actual "experiment".

 

[Interesting Ian]

But if you look at the explanations (see Mike's post for examples) that are required to support that she may have been able to do something "anomalous" I think that you have to also accept at least a likely conclusion is that she could have been a fraud,

How on earth is this a likely conclusion?? She was investigated extensively by the skeptic Hodgson who had already exposed many fake mediums, and he took quite extraordinary measures to rule out cheating. Sure, it is always going to be very difficult to rule out a medium getting information through normal channels. But how can you claim it's a likely conclusion??

Tell me your reasoning here.

albeit one never caught. Especially since we do know other mediums have been frauds.

This is absolutely completely utterly irrelevant.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hmmmm . .think I might be more sympathetic to the overshadowing thesis than superpsi.

 

[Mike D.]

How come the mediums don’t know what they are doing, are these trances involuntary?

Darat,

The state of trance is said to be at state of dissociation, during which, if it goes deep enough, the primary personality of the medium loses consciousness and "loses time," much like a person under general anesthesia. During this state of unconsiousness of the primary personality of the medium, other personalities, persumably created by the medium's subconscious mind (or spirits, if you take spiritualist theory seriously), will "control" the medium's neuromuscular apparatus and communicate. When the medium comes out of trance, he or she professes lack of awareness of anything that has transpired during the period of trance, and often will listen to reports or recordings of the proceedings with interest.

As I mentioned before, the conscious Mrs. Piper once questioned in an interview whether dead people were really communicating through her, and the medium Eileen Garrett not only questioned whether the dead spoke through her (Garrett), but also believed that her own controls (for example, her control "Uvani") were likely her own subconscious creations that emerged while she (her primary personality) was unconscious during trance.

Mike

 

[Darat]

Well, that's why I reformatted it and tried to make clear who was speaking when I typed it here. Its clearer in the book. Also, as I mentioned before, Gauld says, "It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks and gesticulates on behalf of the child communicator; she does not 'control' herself. The annotations in square brackets are by Mrs. Sutton."

What am I checking for? I'm confused.

...snip...

I'll just quickly deal with this and get back to you later on your other points.

I freely admit I could just be being dense here but both transcribings of yours say:

"He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'."

But I still can't work out who is saying this and what I want to know is which one of the following it is:

Piper as her control describing the girl (but then why the "he"?)

or

The recorder recording that Piper as her control described the little girl but the recorder didn't note down anything other then the fact that the girl was described and the 'lovely curls' (this is the one that I believe would undermine the veracity of the transcript)

or

Piper, as Piper saying that her control was describing the little girl to her but Piper didn't mention anything of that description apart from the fact the girl had 'lovely curls'.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion of my confusion!

So what I am asking for is for either you or Mike to go back to your original research source and check which it is (or I suppose it could remain ambiguous even in the original source which would be annoying).

 

[Mike D.]

But I still can't work out who is saying this and what I want to know is which one of the following it is:

Piper as her control describing the girl (but then why the "he"?)

or

The recorder recording that Piper as her control described the little girl but the recorder didn't note down anything other then the fact that the girl was described and the 'lovely curls' (this is the one that I believe would undermine the veracity of the transcript)

or

Piper, as Piper saying that her control was describing the little girl to her but Piper didn't mention anything of that description apart from the fact the girl had 'lovely curls'.

Darat,

Well, it wouldn't be Piper as Piper since the claim is that she was unconscious during the entire proceedings.

As for your first option above, it seems to me likely that the "he" refers to the control Dr. Phinuit (who claimed to be the spirit of a male French doctor), who is claiming to relay messages from Kakie.

Mike

 

[CFLarsen]

"Reformatted" it? That's a new one...

I find it interesting, that even though effort is put into providing a transcript (even twice, once in a unannounced "reformatted" version, and then in the original version) that will supposedly show a "good demo of so-called mediumship", we are pointed to 27 years of studies.

But only after it comes out that the transcript was deemed "totally incomprehensive". By the person who claims that the medium in question had a "good demo of so-called mediumship".

Why claim the "demo" exists, if we need to go through 27 years of studies?

It smells like the astrologers, when they demand that skeptics study for 20 years, before skeptics are even allowed to ask questions about astrology.

I think we are wasting our time here, guys. We won't see anything that even remotely looks like mediumship here. What we do see is yet another grand claim, reduced to nothingness when exposed to the skeptical eye.

Sorry, I ain't buying.

 

[CFLarsen]

As for your first option above, it seems to me likely that the "he" refers to the control Dr. Phinuit (who claimed to be the spirit of a male French doctor), who is claiming to relay messages from Kakie.

Yeah, but Phinuit wasn't the spirit of a male French doctor, was he? He was an artificial personality of Mrs. Piper's.

So, it is Mrs. Piper. Right?