Donks, here below as asked for.
I can find the written responses between Hyman and Schwartz as well, though I thought I'd start with this.
"Veritas" below is Gary Schwartz response.
RANDI: Examine that terminology. Schwartz - as with all these folks - delights in rooting around in the data-base and coming up with names, numbers, initials, anything that he can point to as being highly unlikely to "connect" with the reality of the subject. This is blatant data-searching, one of the most pervasive and destructive aspects of bad science.
VERITAS - Randi knows that EVERY ITEM is scored. This is not "blatant data-searching" - it is thorough and complete data analysis (to rule out Randi's mistaken claim that our sitters remember the hits and forget the misses) to explore the phenomenon in as much detail as possible. Randi's statements here are erroneous.
RANDI: 1. Schwartz is already wealthy and doesn't need the million dollars.
VERITAS - In the recent Times of London article, Randi claimed that we get millions of dollars a year in support. This is a blatant error of fact, one that is easily documented.
RANDI: 3. Schwartz has no charity in mind such as hungry children, AIDS research, or the homeless.
VERITAS - How does Randi know, or even imagine, what is in my mind? I have "no charity"? Randi should sit in my class on the Psychology of Love and Spirituality. When he does, he will know that his biased imagination is without merit.
RANDI: 4. Laurie Campbell's performance on such a test is actually far closer to the 50% expected by chance.
VERITAS - 50% chance would only be for binary events. In the paper just published, when students guessed binary events such as "is your son dead?" (yes or no) or "is your daughter dead?" (yes or no), for these two items, for example, the students guessed 50%, while the 5 mediums guessed 100% accurately. Randi should read the paper closely to see how the data were calculated.
RANDI: Gary Schwartz has also claimed that his very favorite "medium," Laurie Campbell, is 100% accurate in performing some "highly anomalous" readings.
VERITAS - No, we claimed that in one experiment, a telepathy-like experiment, Laurie was 100% in guessing the sex, age, and living versus deceased status of the person the experimenter was imagining. We repeatedly state that this was one experiment. And this experiment has not been published (because it was exploratory)
RANDI: And how "definitive" was John Edward in this "reading"? Let me quote a short part of his guessing-game, prefaced by his usual opening. This 119-word excerpt takes exactly 26 seconds; try reading it in that period, and you'll see just how rapidly Edward speaks. The responses from the sitter are shown in square brackets.
VERITAS - The opening statement WAS general. It usually is. The approximately 100 pieces of information obtained during John's reading included initials, names, historical facts, personal descriptions, and temperament descriptions. Randi knows this, supposedly, since he read the published paper
RANDI: Now, I make no claim that Edward actually peeked through the opening during the "reading." If we had the original material, we could not only make that observation, but many others, as well. But we'll never see that. What I'm pointing out here is that the opportunity to peek was certainly there, and it should not have been, had Schwartz known how to - or cared to - implement proper security. It's not too hard to do, Dr. Schwartz, even for a Ph.D.
VERITAS - Note, in our initial study, we were not concerned if John (or the other mediums) momentarily saw the sitter because they heard her voice almost immediately, and could tell she was female. However, when the reading actually occurred, John was looking at the camera, not at the tiny crack in the screen. And remember, the crack was subsequently sealed with tape
RANDI: Were I a participant in the Schwartz operation, the kind of information that I would look for, may already be available, either through others who participated in the work, or from video records that seem to come to hand by mysterious means. Please note the video frame shown here. It was made from one of Schwartz's "scientific experiments" with John Edward. The "medium" has just taken his seat in the lab, adjacent to another chair to his left where the subject is located. This is what Schwartz considers to be "isolation" of the two persons. Lo! Do we perhaps see Edwards here taking a quick test peek through an opening in the partition? Say not so! This is science, tight controls and all that, and Schwartz himself told Edward, "There will be no eye contact, so a screen will separate you." I'll bet that Edward chuckled when he saw the set-up!
VERITAS - The video clip shows John possibly looking through a crack that is less than 1/4 inch wide (not the 2 inches reported in Randi's misinformed comments in the Times of London). Randi has not seen the raw footage. If he did, he would discover that the reading is done with John (and the other mediums) facing the cameras - therefore, they could not see the sitter while they were doing a reading. Randi selects a single frame and then seemingly gleafully dismisses hours of recordings.
RANDI: The JREF suggested a protocol for testing so-called "mediums" to Gary Schwartz during his visit to the Foundation in Fort Lauderdale in August of last year. He found this quite acceptable. In fact, he commented on its high quality and "ingenuity," though it was a quite ordinary design and one with which he should have already been familiar.
VERITAS - We came to Randi to get his suggestions about our planned multi-center, double-blind experiment. Randi made some suggestions which we have incorporated in the design. For example, Randi likes the idea of having sitters guess which is their reading (a binary, yes-no decision). We prefer having every item scored, for hits and misses. We told Randi we would add his scoring request even though we consider it to be less precise.
RANDI: This is a very definitive protocol, one that could be easily and economically implemented, one that would result in a clear picture, not only of whether the performer was able to produce as claimed, but whether the methods we at the JREF believe are being used to accomplish trickery, are in fact the reasons for apparent successes. Now Schwartz seems to have abandoned any plans to use that excellent design. One can only wonder why.
VERITAS - Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi's suggestions.
RANDI: Since Schwartz has admitted that he's never done a double-blind experiment, insisting that when he does get around to that mode he will improve it to "triple-blind" - whatever that means! - I will await his implementation of proper controls before making further comment; there is no need to explain something that has not yet been shown to exist. What he has done so far appears to be a series of games and amateur probes, quite without any scientific value - though the mediums are quick to quote him and claim academic validation from the University of Arizona.
VERITAS - The latest single-blind experiments rule out cold reading, guessing, selective memory of hits and misses, rater bias, and experimenter bias, from the findings. However, Randi doesn't believe the data. This is because he is convinced this is all "nonsense." By the way, the idea of a "triple-blind" study came up because Randi did not trust our double-blind procedures! We will do a triple-blind study once the double-blind study is completed.
RANDI: Agreed, Schwartz has employed masses of technical attachments, lots of bells and whistles, and has applied statistics to the half-data obtained, but that is much like measuring chimneys with a laser beam to determine whether a fat man in a red suit can get down them, and to thereby explore the reality of Santa Claus.
VERITAS - The above statement is an example of extreme language by someone who does not know science nor care about data that goes against his view of how the universe must operate. Such extreme language is insulting to the intelligent mind who cares about truth in the reporting of data. We do not analyze the half-data," we analyze all the data, and Randi knows this.
