Clancie said:
Agreed. But what do you mean by the word "validated" when it comes to research into physical mediumship?
Validated in the sense that the investigators concluded in favor of the paranormal explanation. This does not mean the phenomena has been concretely validated.
Clancie said:
That is a key point, isn't it. We can't be sure if a particular medium had the ability or not once s/he has died, but we can still (hypothetically) "validate" if the ability is real (if it is). But...can it ever, really, be validated? What would it, realistically, take?
Well, the ability to videotape phenomena nowadays would help to reduce retrospective criticism in the future, since examiners could "see" what we are seeing today. This is obviously not the case for past physical mediumship studies. We cannot see the heavy furniture glide along the floor, or the whole room shake as if an earthquake was occurring, or the floating of Home around the room for minutes on end. We cannot see the mysterious hands and heads that protruded from behind the curtain at Palladino's seances (although there are a number of table levitation photographs, some of which are interesting). This could change
if a physical medium came along who resembled Home or Palladino, but I doubt this will be happening anytime soon, if ever.
Clancie said:
Are you thinking of Palladino? Piper? Someone else? Offhand, I don't remember their dates.
There have been a large number of physical mediums who have had positive research done with them...Rudi and Willi Schneider, Eva C(Martha Berarde), the Goliger circle, Ms. Blake, etc...The Schneider brothers were the last to produce consistent positive results in controlled conditions (1930s).
Clancie said:
But....how is this particular phenomena -ever- going to be convincingly validated? What has been missing from research so far...that ADC hasn't been either (1) totally discredited or (2) validated by the research?
See response above. Also, do not take the view of ADC versus non-paranormal interpretation. Too many people here and elsewhere do this, especially with regard to ghosts/mediumship. There are other theories as to the phenomena (like PK, hallucination, etc...). Don't get wrapped up in the question of spirits, especially with the physical phenomena.
Clancie said:
You have in mind different skeptics than the way the term is used here at JREF, I think. I've never seen anyone here other than you and Mike show any familiarity with Home or Palladino at all....
I meant "
not intimately familiar". Sorry.
Clancie said:
Actually, that's not what I meant. I think there is a tendency for people to discount "old" research as being more biased....less "scientific"...less rigorous, etc. I don't think the researchers of Home's time are accorded the same respect that someone of today would be by many here, and I think this makes their results suspect, to many, from the get-go....
I'm sympathetic to that view, since I once held it. However, there have always been the credulous and the skeptics. Whether the ratio to this has changed in the past 100 years is somewhat debateable (we have no concrete evidence to say that it has). If you believe CSICOP, people are growing ever more credulous, but I would not agree with this. Spiritualism was not viewed well by the vast majority in the 19th century, as can be seen in the media of the time as well as the writings of some. Some believers in Spiritualism and physical phenomena in particular display a critical attitude at times, while others do not. In general, the work produced in the SPR was good, and some of the SPR leaders were distinctly prejudiced against the physical phenomena.
Both Home and Palladino had their share of both critical and credulous sitters. It is important to note, though, that they did not
exclude the critical minded from sitting with them, as many did and still do.
Clancie said:
This is an interesting idea, but I guess there's really no documentation of it....
Well, I think it's pretty clear that there are no Homes or Palladinos currently (i.e. a medium who works in light and invites investigation). If there were, the media would quickly get a hold of them and they would be widely known, as those two were in their day.
Clancie said:
I know you are not a "believer" in any way, and that your purpose seems clear enough, dharlow. But to be perfectly frank, I feel there is little acknowledgment at this board of "the mystery" of any of it and I'll be surprised if your references change that for most, if any....
I wouldn't necessarily say that. There are clearly all types on this forum. Some are disbelievers, some are former believers who saw their beliefs debunked and concluded it was all nonsense, some are merely curious and looking for any real evidence, etc... I post these references as a guide to some interesting past people in whose presence the most marvelous phenomena was reported.
One must understand that the physical phenomena of mediumship is vastly different from the mental. From a conjuring standpoint, the ultimate goal is to prevent your audience from detecting your trick. With mental mediumship, this is fairly easy, because the trickery is difficult to concretely prove (ie cold reading), or because one can obtain information on sitters in advance and have relatively little risk to exposure. Physical mediumship is different, because the tricks are taking place underneath the eye of the audience. This carries a major risk, and it was in the best interest of fraudulent mediums to reduce this risk by conducting sittings in the dark (which allows endless possible methods of trickery not available in the light), and to confine sittings only to fervent believers in Spiritualism. Home and Palladino are different. Their sittings were held in light, and they willingly sat with all types of observers. They also, and this is important, repeatedly
violated two of the most fundamental principles of conjuring....don't repeat your trick to the same audience (unless using a different method each time), and don't let your audience know what it is you are about to do.
*Note: While I have addresses only Clancie in this thread, I think some of my responses answer some questions or points put forward by other posters in this thread.
. And why I think its will likely be a continued fruitless exercise to try and show these phenomena through the method of science, it just doesn't seem to support them.
Care to join?