Mediumship: what would it take?

[Mike D.]

I think many here would agree that mediumship cannot be proven to be real without a medium or mediums producing statistically significant hits during scientific testing using an air-tight double blind protocol. And that furthermore, the results must be published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals. But even this, I think for most here, is not enough to establish the reality of mediumship. I think it would probably be further agreed that there must be replication of the results by independent researchers.

My question to scientifically-minded members of the forum is: how many mediums must be involved in these tests, and how many scientists must replicate positive results, and how many replications would it take for l) you personally to accept that mediumship is real; and 2) for the scientific community at large to accept that it is real?

In addition to the question of replication, would you say that a coherent theory of how mediumship fits in with already existing scientific knowledge would be a prerequistie for acceptance of it as a reality by the scientific community?

(To simplify things, let's for the moment say that mediumship is real if mediums can be shown to exhibit anomalous cognition. This sets aside for now the more difficult question of whether or not the information they become aware of comes from the dead, or whether or not there is an afterlife.)

[Yahzi]

1 medium. 0 scientists.

Look, suppose I claimed I could talk to Chinese people. How many scientists would you need to verify this claim? None at all. You'd just need me, a Chinese person, and two ounces of common sense.

The fact that PSI is only expierenced by believers is all you need to know. If it were real, then it wouldn't matter whether you believed or not.

Name any legitimate issue that people argue about the mere existance of.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Yahzi
1 medium. 0 scientists.

Look, suppose I claimed I could talk to Chinese people. How many scientists would you need to verify this claim? None at all. You'd just need me, a Chinese person, and two ounces of common sense.

The fact that PSI is only expierenced by believers is all you need to know. If it were real, then it wouldn't matter whether you believed or not.

Name any legitimate issue that people argue about the mere existance of.

Er...global warming? Perhaps dark matter/energy? The long-term effect of marijuana on someone's health?

[Clancie]

Posted by Yahzi

1 medium. 0 scientists.
I fail to see any skeptical thinking in the above at all.

[T'ai Chi]

I think first that there would need to be proof of spirits, etc.

If one person could prove that the dead really are not simply gone, then we could start talking about if they could communicate with the living.

[MRC_Hans]

For a scientific approach, we first need to find out WHAT we are trying to prove:

A) Mediumship
B) The existence of communicating spirits.

A medium really makes several claims:

1) Spirits exist.
2) These spirits are the souls (or whatever) of deceased persons.
3) The spirits want to and can communicate with the living.
4) The medium is able to be a communication channel.

However, there are other explanations that also fit the observed performance of mediums:

5) Cold reading.
6) Telepathy.
7) Spirits exist, but are not the souls of deceased people.

There are a number of circular arguments out there, for instance some argue that the performance of mediums is evidence for existence of mediums.

I don't think statistics is a good way to evaluate the performance of mediums, because we lack a reference: What is the expected hit-rate WITHOUT spirit contact? Or without cold-reading?

It would be possible to make the following test:

Test persons submit information about deceased persons in their family, among friends and others close to them. This information is kept in sealed envelopes.

Medium is presented with test persons, who act as sitters.

Once medium feels he/she has a contact, medioum and sitters are screened from each other, and the medium makes as many statements as possible about the chosen sitter.

Transscript of the session is compared with submitted info from the sitter.

If the medium can produce anything but occasional hits in this setup, something is happening, although it could be spirits, telepathy, or clairvoyance.

Hans

[Flo]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
It would be possible to make the following test:

Test persons submit information about deceased persons in their family, among friends and others close to them. This information is kept in sealed envelopes.

Medium is presented with test persons, who act as sitters.

Once medium feels he/she has a contact, medioum and sitters are screened from each other, and the medium makes as many statements as possible about the chosen sitter.

Transscript of the session is compared with submitted info from the sitter.

If the medium can produce anything but occasional hits in this setup, something is happening, although it could be spirits, telepathy, or clairvoyance.

Hans

or previous knowledge of the "sitter" by the "medium" ... given the fact that no "medium" has ever come with information that wasn't already known by someone, a flurry of hits is more evocative of some sort of trickery than mystery :rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

Mike D good idea for a thread but I predict you will not get a straight answer to the
questions you pose here. Let's see if I am proven wrong. Nobody here will ultimately admit to what it would take to convince them .... except perhaps in the most sweeping, Barnum like statements and demands. And then they will move the goalposts.

(PS: there was a similar attempt to ferret out this information right here on this page re the medium to be tested in Chile
and by myself a while ago, also w/ no result but a few good ideas from serious posters)

[MRC_Hans]

Uhhn Steve, it might be a good idea to read the posts, we were actually several who took the question seriously, before you made your prediction (sorry to disturb you with facts). Well, at leat nobody will accuse you of cheating :rolleyes: .

Flo, yeh, of course trickery would have to be checked for somehow, but I deliberately left that out in order to not step on toes. However, as we have just seen some people yell even if they are not stepped on.....

Hans

[SteveGrenard]

However, as we have just seen some people yell even if they are not stepped on.....

Go back again and read carefully. This has been discussed below right here on this page. I started a thread asking for protocols as well. I concede several good ideas were offered; however, in the context of those PRIOR attempts, my prediction stands. Nobody will go on the record with the details of a fool proof protocol and when they do they move the goal posts. And there will not be a cvonsensus either. That is there will be hold outs who will not agree no matter how irrational their objections are. We have some posters who say they want only just one, and then one is never enough. We have posters who
specify siitter silent, non-visual contact with sitter/medium anonymous to each other and assigned by random, but who then come back with other hypotheses to explain hits: generalizations, informed and wild guessing, warm reading, probability theory, and the best of all, coincidence.

Ergo, there is no protocol anywhere which meet/counter these objections or explanations, and there never will be.
We can come close but never the whole enchilada.

[Ersby]

Personally, I think some kind of cross culturalism should be required if ADC is real. I've had enough of this "in my own frame of reference" nonsense. Especially with regard to names. If a medium can get Mary, then they can get Mei, and Tommy/Timmy would work just as well for Tomoyasu. I was very interested in Claus' recent report of a UK medium doing a gig in Denmark who came seriously unstuck when it came to names. It makes no sense, if mediums get names clairaudiently, that they cannot get names from other ethnic backgrounds.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

And just why should good research money be wasted on 'mediumship', when seances were debunked in the late 19th/early 20th centuries?

A couple of girls crack their toes, and now we have a whole industry dedicated to 'speaking with the dead'.:rolleyes:

You want a protocol? Take the JREF challenge and you'll get one. Complete with goal posts set in concrete.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard (my emphasis)


Go back again and read carefully. This has been discussed below right here on this page. I started a thread asking for protocols as well. I concede several good ideas were offered; however, in the context of those PRIOR attempts, my prediction stands. Nobody will go on the record with the details of a fool proof protocol and when they do they move the goal posts. And there will not be a cvonsensus either. That is there will be hold outs who will not agree no matter how irrational their objections are. We have some posters who say they want only just one, and then one is never enough. We have posters who
specify siitter silent, non-visual contact with sitter/medium anonymous to each other and assigned by random, but who then come back with other hypotheses to explain hits: generalizations, informed and wild guessing, warm reading, probability theory, and the best of all, coincidence.

Ergo, there is no protocol anywhere which meet/counter these objections or explanations, and there never will be.
We can come close but never the whole enchilada.

Predicting prior attempts :confused:

Ah, well.

Excuse me, but why do you expect that there should be one convincing protocol? As I have lined out in my first post here, this is a complex problem, and obviously a layered approach is needed, like: Is there anything there? If yes, what kind of phenomenon is it? What makes it work? etc. etc.

I might also invert the question and ask: Is there any single protocol that could convince YOU that there is no such thing as mediumship?

.... I thought not.

Hans

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think first that there would need to be proof of spirits, etc.

If one person could prove that the dead really are not simply gone, then we could start talking about if they could communicate with the living.

T'ai Chi,

If proving that people survive death is necessary before considering whether or not such surviving spirits can communicate with the living, what kind of evidence would you look to for such proof?

Mike

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

T'ai said:If one person could prove that the dead really are not simply gone, then we could start talking about if they could communicate with the living.
Thank you! Could we first verify that the entity doing the talking actually exists?

I can talk to the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune, don't you know.

~~ Paul

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
T'ai said:
Thank you! Could we first verify that the entity doing the talking actually exists?

I can talk to the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune, don't you know.

~~ Paul They obviously exist. My Grandfather told me (through a medium) that he was well ,didn’t feel any pain when he died and regularly watches over me. What more proof do you need ?

[Garrette]

I can talk to the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune, don't you know.

Oh, thank heavens! I've been trying for just AGES to get a message to him. Please tell him this:

Yes.
Sunday at 2.
A really big one but not as furry as last time.
Strawberry.

Tell him it's from Spunky. He'll know who you mean.

Thanks loads.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mike D.

T'ai Chi,

If proving that people survive death is necessary before considering whether or not such surviving spirits can communicate with the living, what kind of evidence would you look to for such proof?

Mike

Evidence that there is a spirit/ evidence people can somehow survive death, of course. :)

It isn't up to me to dream up what the evidence might or could be or how to get it; it is up to the people making the claim that there are spirits, etc., to provide evidence for that.

Simply saying you are communicating with spirits isn't evidence. One could do the same thing as many mediums are but instead of spirits of dead ones, say that they are communicating with aliens/pets(I know, it is hard to believe!)/microscopic plants/God/saints from the past; the possibilities are endless.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Garrette, the hamster says he has just the one you want, but you have to bring the chocolate sauce.

~~ Paul

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Evidence that there is a spirit/ evidence people can somehow survive death, of course. :)

It isn't up to me to dream up what the evidence might or could be or how to get it; it is up to the people making the claim that there are spirits, etc., to provide evidence for that.

Simply saying you are communicating with spirits isn't evidence. One could do the same thing as many mediums are but instead of spirits of dead ones, say that they are communicating with aliens/pets(I know, it is hard to believe!)/microscopic plants/God/saints from the past; the possibilities are endless.

T'ai Chi,

I don't think you've answered the question I put to you. You said in your earlier post that before we consider the claim that it is possible to communicate with spirits, that there would first have to be proof that spirits exist, i.e., that people have survived death. I'm just having a hard time imagining what evidence one could come up with that spirits exist, other than actually receiving communications from such spirits. If you had a relative who disappeared without a trace and without explanation, would not the only evidence that he still existed be some form of communication from him? If, after a long time had passed, you received a letter or telephone call from your relative from a remote country, or someone who had travelled in that country reported he had seen your relative, I imagine you'd consider that as evidence that your relative still existed.

I don't see what the evidence would be that would prove that spirits exist apart from communication with them. You seem to be asking for such evidence, but apparently can't say what that evidence could be like.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
For a scientific approach, we first need to find out WHAT we are trying to prove:

A) Mediumship
B) The existence of communicating spirits.

A medium really makes several claims:

1) Spirits exist.
2) These spirits are the souls (or whatever) of deceased persons.
3) The spirits want to and can communicate with the living.
4) The medium is able to be a communication channel.

However, there are other explanations that also fit the observed performance of mediums:

5) Cold reading.
6) Telepathy.
7) Spirits exist, but are not the souls of deceased people.

There are a number of circular arguments out there, for instance some argue that the performance of mediums is evidence for existence of mediums.

I don't think statistics is a good way to evaluate the performance of mediums, because we lack a reference: What is the expected hit-rate WITHOUT spirit contact? Or without cold-reading?

It would be possible to make the following test:

Test persons submit information about deceased persons in their family, among friends and others close to them. This information is kept in sealed envelopes.

Medium is presented with test persons, who act as sitters.

Once medium feels he/she has a contact, medioum and sitters are screened from each other, and the medium makes as many statements as possible about the chosen sitter.

Transscript of the session is compared with submitted info from the sitter.

If the medium can produce anything but occasional hits in this setup, something is happening, although it could be spirits, telepathy, or clairvoyance.

Hans

Hans,

I agree with you that the issue is more complex than sometimes seems to be acknowledged by people. That's why at the end of my initial post I said that for now we could bracket the question of whether or not communication with the dead is taking place and first try to determine whether or not any mediums are exhibiting anomalous cognition.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Everyone,

Assume that the protocol used was satisfactory to you and that it showed positive results. How many replications by other scientists would it take before 1) you accepted the results as proof, and 2) the scientific community in general accepted the results as proof? Numbers, please.

I am interested in the numbers because I don't have a strong scientific background and wonder how many replicatons those who do would require.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
And just why should good research money be wasted on 'mediumship'...

Hand Bent Spoon,

Your sentence here to me is evidence of what I see as a division of opinion on this message board. On the one hand, you feel that scientific research on mediums is a waste of time and money. And I've read posts by others who share your view. On the other hand, there are posters on this message board who complain that mediums do not offer themselves for scientific testing, and lament the fact that, as they see it, competent testing does not take place.

Mike

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


Er...global warming? Perhaps dark matter/energy? The long-term effect of marijuana on someone's health?

Good ones, but... global warming is real. The only people who argue about it are Americans. The rest of the planet acknowledges that you can't dump an infinite amount of carbon into the atomosphere without having an effect.

Same about the long-term effect of mj... only Americans believe in this bugaboo. MJ is non-toxic. Smoking it forever turns you a big loser, but there's considerable reason to believe that losers are the kind of people who smoke mj all the time anyway.

Dark matter, though - that's a good one. I concede that there are some legitimate existance issues.

But it's not like there are people claiming to have dark matter. Even Mike D. gets my point: why would it be necessary to scientifically prove something so close to ordinary expierence?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Yahzi


Good ones, but... global warming is real. The only people who argue about it are Americans. The rest of the planet acknowledges that you can't dump an infinite amount of carbon into the atomosphere without having an effect.

Excuse me for derailing but isn't the issue not whether global warming is real, but rather, whether or not its mostly a natural cycle of the atmosphere, or if we do in fact have a noticable effect on it ourselves?

As for the overall question I'm not very smart on my scientific experiment protocols, but if mediums could consistently and repeatably get results above chance I would acknowledge there was some type of anomolous cognition going on. However if the existence of the afterlife, and ADC wasn't also consequently proved I wouldn't be able to go all the way in believing they were gaining the info from dead people.

[apoger]

>How many replications by other scientists would it take before 1) you accepted the results as proof, and 2) the scientific community in general accepted the results as proof? Numbers, please.


I'm sorry but this really isn't about numbers, it's about evidence.

Evidence does not work by numbers. Trying to fit it into that mold just won't work. Evidence is measured by confidence, which is itself a dynamic entity.

Consider this:

I invent a method to turn lead into gold. I declare this new discovery to the world. I claim that the process is replicable and I explain how it is accomplished.

My claim is anecdotal. There is evidence (my claim) but without replication there will be little confidence.

Somewhere someone replicates my method. It works! They report the findings. Now there is some replication, but just once. People will probably, both as individuals and as a community, begin to offer some conditional acceptance.

Over time more and more replictations occur. The technique is used for fruitful practical purposes. As this process ramps up, so does the confidence. Eventually the technique becomes so commonplace that it is accepted as a fact... and will remain so unless it is overturned by new discovery.

Now if the replication process shows failure at any point, confidence will plummet.

For example take aspirin. Hypothetically let us state that aspirin users stop feeling the pain reduction aspect of aspirin. Tests are done, over and over, and they show that aspirin does nothing! Confidence in aspirin would collapse. Such a finding would seem to show that either something has changed or that our initial findings about aspirin were wrong. Unless of course further evidence contradicts these new findings.

This is the way it works. Not by convincing X number of scientists, or doing X replications. It's a neverending process of exploration and all findings are contingent upon the current circumstances.

This same process would take over (does take over) for claims that "mediumship" has merit. So far the confidence level is low because all claims so far have been anecdotal and/or unsubstaciated. If credible tests were done and practical applications were found, then confidence would rise apporpriately.


This took a while to write, I hope it helped someone. ;)
Feel free to copy/paste it anywhere where it might do some good.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Ersby
Personally, I think some kind of cross culturalism should be required if ADC is real. I've had enough of this "in my own frame of reference" nonsense. Especially with regard to names. If a medium can get Mary, then they can get Mei, and Tommy/Timmy would work just as well for Tomoyasu. I was very interested in Claus' recent report of a UK medium doing a gig in Denmark who came seriously unstuck when it came to names. It makes no sense, if mediums get names clairaudiently, that they cannot get names from other ethnic backgrounds.

Ersby,

I think that the medium Brian Hurst has claimed to have done this. I don't remember whether Hurst himself claimed this in a post at TVTalkShows, or whether Clancie and/or RC stated that he did this. (Clancie and RC attended one of Brian Hurst's seances.)

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by apoger
>How many replications by other scientists would it take before 1) you accepted the results as proof, and 2) the scientific community in general accepted the results as proof? Numbers, please.


I'm sorry but this really isn't about numbers, it's about evidence.

Evidence does not work by numbers. Trying to fit it into that mold just won't work. Evidence is measured by confidence, which is itself a dynamic entity.

Consider this:

I invent a method to turn lead into gold. I declare this new discovery to the world. I claim that the process is replicable and I explain how it is accomplished.

My claim is anecdotal. There is evidence (my claim) but without replication there will be little confidence.

Somewhere someone replicates my method. It works! They report the findings. Now there is some replication, but just once. People will probably, both as individuals and as a community, begin to offer some conditional acceptance.

Over time more and more replictations occur. The technique is used for fruitful practical purposes. As this process ramps up, so does the confidence. Eventually the technique becomes so commonplace that it is accepted as a fact... and will remain so unless it is overturned by new discovery.

Now if the replication process shows failure at any point, confidence will plummet.

For example take aspirin. Hypothetically let us state that aspirin users stop feeling the pain reduction aspect of aspirin. Tests are done, over and over, and they show that aspirin does nothing! Confidence in aspirin would collapse. Such a finding would seem to show that either something has changed or that our initial findings about aspirin were wrong. Unless of course further evidence contradicts these new findings.

This is the way it works. Not by convincing X number of scientists, or doing X replications. It's a neverending process of exploration and all findings are contingent upon the current circumstances.

This same process would take over (does take over) for claims that "mediumship" has merit. So far the confidence level is low because all claims so far have been anecdotal and/or unsubstaciated. If credible tests were done and practical applications were found, then confidence would rise apporpriately.


This took a while to write, I hope it helped someone. ;)
Feel free to copy/paste it anywhere where it might do some good.

Thanks, apoger!

Is everyone in agreement with apoger? Any dissenting views?

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by voidx

As for the overall question I'm not very smart on my scientific experiment protocols, but if mediums could consistently and repeatably get results above chance I would acknowledge there was some type of anomolous cognition going on. However if the existence of the afterlife, and ADC wasn't also consequently proved I wouldn't be able to go all the way in believing they were gaining the info from dead people.

voidx,

I think you and I are thinking along the same lines here. I think that in considering mediums, one must distinguish between anomalous cognition and communication with the dead. Of course, communication with the dead would certainly involve anomalous cognition, but a medium could conceivably show evidence of anomalous congnition without exhibiting any good evidence of communicating with the dead.

Mike

[SteveGrenard]

On the replication issue, I agree wth apoger. There is no magic number....

a bigger issue is how would a skeptic define replication in this case? This is not a chemistry experiment and it is impossible to conduct the precise same experiment (same sitter, same medium, same datastream --- obviously an absurd objective) over and over again and call it replication. A particular medium may get the same % of accuracy with different sitters or the same sitters may get the same information from different mediums but clearly it is invalid for the same sitter and medium to repeat what they have done already with each other.

So I would be interested in how replication is defined in a soft science sense...

[Mike D.]

Here's a quote from pages 30 and 31 of Alan Gauld's book, Mediumship and Survival: A Century of Investigations. I was reminded of it while thinking about T'ai Chi's posts in this thread.

Gauld writes:
"Here I can only point out that if, for instance, one had to identify a person, whose body one could not see, by conversing with him over a somewhat noisy telephone line, one could not identify him unless his conversation exhibited certain distinctive features -- unless, for example, he could remember certain things that he ought to be able to remember if he is the person he purports to be...; and unless he exhibited certain motives and purposes, skills and personality characteristics known to be his; and so forth. Rather similarly, evidence of just these kinds is at least evidence WITHOUT WHICH one would have NO GROUNDS AT ALL for supposing that some human beings may in some sense survive the dissolution of their bodies."

[Words in all caps are in italics in the original.]

[T'ai Chi]

Hi Mike,

Originally posted by Mike D.

I don't think you've answered the question I put to you. You said in your earlier post that before we consider the claim that it is possible to communicate with spirits, that there would first have to be proof that spirits exist, i.e., that people have survived death. I'm just having a hard time imagining what evidence one could come up with that spirits exist, other than actually receiving communications from such spirits.


I don't know either. But then again, I'm not making the claim of their being spirits or a spirit world or spirit communication, so it isn't up to me to dream of what the evidence could be or ways to find the evidence, considering I don't believe in spirits and I'm not making the claim of their being spirits.


If, after a long time had passed, you received a letter or telephone call from your relative from a remote country, or someone who had travelled in that country reported he had seen your relative, I imagine you'd consider that as evidence that your relative still existed.


Sure, I do agree with that. However, "disappeared" is different from "dead", and we know how postal mail and telephones work entirely.


I don't see what the evidence would be that would prove that spirits exist apart from communication with them. You seem to be asking for such evidence, but apparently can't say what that evidence could be like.


I don't see what the evidence would be either. But again, I'm not making the claim of spirits existing. For all I know, spirits could be proven by studying some molecule, or by flying high enough in a spaceship, or by weighing people right after they die. I don't know. If I did know, my claim might be that spirits exist. If others knew, they'd try to prove it. It is like me asking how someone what they would consider evidence for ch'i. (even though I don't believe in ch'i like that) What is your evidence for ch'i? :)

So-called spirit communication consists wholly of one person talking.. and that is all we know for sure. Our ignorance of the 'things' on the "other line" is not evidence for spirits. Spirits are evidence for spirits, but you're right, I don't know how to find evidence for them.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mike D.

Gauld writes:
"Here I can only point out that if, for instance, one had to identify a person, whose body one could not see, by conversing with him over a somewhat noisy telephone line, one could not identify him unless his conversation exhibited certain distinctive features -- unless, for example, he could remember certain things that he ought to be able to remember if he is the person he purports to be...; and unless he exhibited certain motives and purposes, skills and personality characteristics known to be his; and so forth. Rather similarly, evidence of just these kinds is at least evidence WITHOUT WHICH one would have NO GROUNDS AT ALL for supposing that some human beings may in some sense survive the dissolution of their bodies."

[Words in all caps are in italics in the original.]

We know how the method, telephone lines, work. We could, in theory, trace the line and find out where it originated from. There is no explanation, only speculation, on the methods of spirit communication. Moreover, there is no evidence of what, if anything, there is on the other end of the line. :)

I would, however, consider it suggestive evidence, if a medium could reveal VERY specific things, and repeat it, instead of vague things about love and being happy.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
On the replication issue, I agree wth apoger. There is no magic number....

a bigger issue is how would a skeptic define replication in this case? This is not a chemistry experiment and it is impossible to conduct the precise same experiment (same sitter, same medium, same datastream --- obviously an absurd objective) over and over again and call it replication. A particular medium may get the same % of accuracy with different sitters or the same sitters may get the same information from different mediums but clearly it is invalid for the same sitter and medium to repeat what they have done already with each other.

So I would be interested in how replication is defined in a soft science sense...


I'd say that replication is defined the same way, but with some disclaimers, because in the social sciences 'reality' is more of a social construct that is changing constantly, so identical conditions are more impossible.

I think the same medium requirement is pretty easily done (unless I am missing something..). I think the same sitter could be done too, if the medium and sitter are in different rooms and are blinded to each other (except for text feedback maybe?).

If a medium, M, gives a sitter, S who is behind a screen, a reading, if M gives S, who is behind a screen again, a reading later, it should be similar I'd think. If M gives S a reading much later, the information should be similar again. This could be repeated a lot of times.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Mike D.
I think many here would agree that mediumship cannot be proven to be real without a medium or mediums producing statistically significant hits during scientific testing using an air-tight double blind protocol. And that furthermore, the results must be published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals. But even this, I think for most here, is not enough to establish the reality of mediumship. I think it would probably be further agreed that there must be replication of the results by independent researchers.

My question to scientifically-minded members of the forum is: how many mediums must be involved in these tests, and how many scientists must replicate positive results, and how many replications would it take for l) you personally to accept that mediumship is real; and 2) for the scientific community at large to accept that it is real?

In addition to the question of replication, would you say that a coherent theory of how mediumship fits in with already existing scientific knowledge would be a prerequistie for acceptance of it as a reality by the scientific community?

(To simplify things, let's for the moment say that mediumship is real if mediums can be shown to exhibit anomalous cognition. This sets aside for now the more difficult question of whether or not the information they become aware of comes from the dead, or whether or not there is an afterlife.)

This is what it would take: it would have to be true.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I don't think statistics is a good way to evaluate the performance of mediums, because we lack a reference: What is the expected hit-rate WITHOUT spirit contact? Or without cold-reading?

It would be possible to make the following test:

Test persons submit information about deceased persons in their family, among friends and others close to them. This information is kept in sealed envelopes.

Medium is presented with test persons, who act as sitters.

Once medium feels he/she has a contact, medioum and sitters are screened from each other, and the medium makes as many statements as possible about the chosen sitter.

Transscript of the session is compared with submitted info from the sitter.

If the medium can produce anything but occasional hits in this setup, something is happening, although it could be spirits, telepathy, or clairvoyance.

Hans

Although your test scenario is OK, it suffers from a flaw: you mention counting 'hits', but someone would have to judge what a vaild 'hit' is, and that could get tricky. (For example, if the medium says someone had "light coloured hair", and what was written in the envelope said "blonde", is that a hit?) Perhaps the only way that would work is if the information in the sealed envelope and the statements made by the 'medium' were in the form of multiple choice questions with predefined answers.

I think Randi had a better protocol when he challenged Sylvia on Larry King Live... She does a supposed 'reading' for someone (or several people), and provides an analysis (without talking to the person or actually getting 'feedback') that the person doesn't see. Then, the people get to look at their own (and other) readings, and try to determine if it 'matches' them. If people can pick their own reading out more often than not, then there might be something to mediumship.

[SteveGrenard]

The pre-reading questionnaire has some problems. There is too much that a communicator can transmit, which while valid, may not be included. I have seen some of the strangest hits, which were validated, come through that nobody would have thought of to ask in advance.

Names, relations, causes of death and other verifiable and objective facts are one thing (and you may get none of these) , but what one had for lunch, the name of and description of a deceased pet, a problem with a tire or battery, or similar information cannot always be thought out in advance.

An actual example of a non-local reading by a medium where a communicator came through for a person who was subsequently identified by an unusual dog's name but who didn't even know he was being read is a case in point. The medium didn't know this person either but they had a go-between or friend that made the connection. The medium correctly described the name and then said she saw an angel flying through the air, no wait, she saw a hand flying it (e.g. like kids play with toy airplanes but it was an angel). Somebody had given the unknown sitter a small silver angel on a keychain for his wife who was overseas. He was supposed to mail it to her but the day after this communication was received she called and asked him to come over for the weekend personally to help her with some chores she couldn't handle. He thus found himself planning to hand fly the angel to the intended recipient. If it weren't for the unusual name which caused the go-between to contact the person who had received and was to transport the silver angel figure, this connection would never have been made. Two days after the communication the go-between contacted the person in question because of the name and the connection was made.

The medium still didn't know who the unintended sitter was but had a second visit from the communicator who then provided about 24 other details such as details of a motorcyle accident (not fatal), the deceased's(hiw own) occupation, a new scarf (which the unintended/unknown sitter had received) and similar bits of mundane but evidential information.

None of this could possibly be predicted in advance on a questionnaire unless it was hundreds of questions long.

As the Gauld quote Mike D. provided, it is such highly personal details that a medium could not possibly have known that is most telling. We go through our days and our lives experiencing a seemingly endless series of events and ocurrences. Some of these are, for some reason, plucked out and mentioned by communicators. When not just one or a few, but a whole series of such ocurrences or events are true for one particular situation or person, it makes it very difficult to impeach the survival hypothesis. This is especially so when the the medium and sitter are not only non-local, silent and anonymous to each other but when a proxy who also remains silent is involved. In this case, which is a true case (anecdote if you will....) the sitter did not even know they were the target of the communication until two days after the fact.

I am not offering this as proof of anything but rather as something which happens often and which cannot be handled by a pre-reading questionnaire but only by an after reading rating of the hits. This then opens up the reading to criticism of stretching to make things fit and so on.

[Soapy Sam]

The joke about this is that there could be nothing easier than convincing any open minded observer of the reality of a reliable, repeatable psi effect. It is the fact that psi effects are unreliable and non repeatable that leads to their rejection by sceptics.

In front of me are four bookshelves.
If any astral projectionist can e-mail me in the next 24 hours with the titles of the seventh book from the left on each shelf, I will be a believer.
That's four shelves, four books. No variation.
Clock's running...

[SteveGrenard]

Soapy ... what makes you think "astral projection" as you call it is in anyway related to the topic of this thread? This is a poor attempt to take us off topic.

Also, do you know and are not telling us, if any so-called persons claiming to be able to do this are reading this thread? If not, why are you making this challenge? There are forums and listservs populated by such persons. Perhaps you should make your offer there.

Thanks....

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
An actual example of a non-local reading by a medium where a communicator came through for a person who was subsequently identified by an unusual dog's name but who didn't even know he was being read is a case in point. The medium didn't know this person either but they had a go-between or friend that made the connection. The medium correctly described the name and then said she saw an angel flying through the air, no wait, she saw a hand flying it (e.g. like kids play with toy airplanes but it was an angel). Somebody had given the unknown sitter a small silver angel on a keychain for his wife who was overseas. He was supposed to mail it to her but the day after this communication was received she called and asked him to come over for the weekend personally to help her with some chores she couldn't handle. He thus found himself planning to hand fly the angel to the intended recipient. If it weren't for the unusual name which caused the go-between to contact the person who had received and was to transport the silver angel figure, this connection would never have been made. Two days after the communication the go-between contacted the person in question because of the name and the connection was made.

The medium still didn't know who the unintended sitter was but had a second visit from the communicator who then provided about 24 other details such as details of a motorcyle accident (not fatal), the deceased's(hiw own) occupation, a new scarf (which the unintended/unknown sitter had received) and similar bits of mundane but evidential information.

None of this could possibly be predicted in advance on a questionnaire unless it was hundreds of questions long.


That was an incredible anecdote.
As in, "credible: true:: incredible:_______"
And really exciting reading, too.

{Turns back to Lovecraft's " Chtluhu in Love, the sequel."}
"Chtluhu slimed into the Woman's Dorm at Arkham U. Until last week, C had not had sexual contact with a human woman since they lost their unsightly body hair, about 135 million years ago.
"But", he mused, "they have the same number of hair follicles as those dashed Hairy Ones With Big Fangs."
"Hey! Slime ball, who in the Name of All That's Holy are you?!!?!?
Aaaargh...."
It was the custodian and the sous chef for the Arkham Cafeteria, "Big Tiny Johnson".
His last words to our antihero were, "Bite me, and get that geek John Edward while you're at it, and makes sure it its not Edwards from nnnn......"
After slathering Big Tiny with Bernaise sause, C. complied with his last wishes.

{To be Conti

[Soapy Sam]

Steve.
The "Astral Projectionist" comment was a joke. Let's be honest, the whole thing is a joke.
My point is that proof of psychic data gathering isactually astoundingly easy to obtain, by any similar test. This contradicts your earlier statement that "nobody here will admit what it would take to convince him." I can be convinced very simply. The fact that such evidence persistently fails to BE obtained, suggests that there is no effect there in the first place.

Mediums claim to receive information from disembodied spirits. If such a spirit can obtain information about the afterlife and materialise at a seance anywhere in space, then surely it can get to my bookshelf, have a quick look and nip back to the seance?
Or would my sceptical attitude impede it's activities?

[Loki]

Mike D.

Gauld writes:
"Here I can only point out that if, for instance, one had to identify a person, whose body one could not see, by conversing with him over a somewhat noisy telephone line, one could not identify him unless his conversation exhibited certain distinctive features ..."
How would Identify someone over a "somewhat noisy" telephone line? How about :

Me : "Hello, who's calling?"
Mr X : "zzzz..z.ed..zzz..17..zzzbud..."
Me : "Sorry, it's a bad line, please try again? Did you say "ed"?"
Mr X : "zzz..white...zzz..niagara".
Me: "Look, who is this? The line's very bad - give me your name and I'll call you back"
Mr X : "zzz..teddy bear..zzz..lounge room"
Me : "Okay, now your just wasting my time. What's your name, please"
Mr X : "zzz...Mary..zzz"
Me : "Mary? but you're a male. A you referring to my Aunt Mary?"
Mr X : "..zzz..love you...zzzz..February....zzzz.."
Me : "THis is silly. One last time, identify yourself. What is your name?"
Mr X : "zzz...grandma's dog...zzzz...boat accident..."
Me : "Listen pal, don't waste my time. Hang up and call me back when you're ready to talk sense".


Can I suggest that if we want to see if "his conversation exhibited certain distinctive features ", then we request features such as name, age, and date of birth or death? Just those 3 details wold be enought for 99.9% of us to identify the person in question. It's how we it in the real world - use our names to identify ourselves. Strange that the spirits remeber everything *except* their own names.

Your sentence here to me is evidence of what I see as a division of opinion on this message board. On the one hand, you feel that scientific research on mediums is a waste of time and money. ... On the other hand, there are posters on this message board who complain that mediums do not offer themselves for scientific testing, and lament the fact that, as they see it, competent testing does not take place.
My complaint is that mediums have no interest in generating unambiguous data unless someone else is paying. If I invent a perpetual motion machine, I shouldn't expect the scientific community to fund research into whther I've done it or not - or at lest, not until after I've gathered and supplied some reasonable evidence myself. Why test John Edward, for example? He has made no attempt to publish any scientifically gathered evidence (meaning, controlled) of his abilities.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Loki

My complaint is that mediums have no interest in generating unambiguous data unless someone else is paying. If I invent a perpetual motion machine, I shouldn't expect the scientific community to fund research into whther I've done it or not - or at lest, not until after I've gathered and supplied some reasonable evidence myself. Why test John Edward, for example? He has made no attempt to publish any scientifically gathered evidence (meaning, controlled) of his abilities.

Loki,

I gather from what you say here that you feel that any medium who feels that he has genuine powers (or wants people to think that he does) should *first* conduct controlled scientific tests on himself to the best of his ability and publish the results of these tests before the scientific community puts time, effort, and funds into conducting its own tests of the medium. Is this correct? If so, how do you think this would work out in practice? Do you feel most mediums have the ability to design scientific protocols to test themselves? And where would they publish the results? I assume that the results would have to be published somewhere that would attract the attention of scientists.

Mike

[Loki]

Mike D.

gather from what you say here that you feel that any medium who feels that he has genuine powers (or wants people to think that he does) should *first* conduct controlled scientific tests on himself to the best of his ability and publish the results of these tests before the scientific community puts time, effort, and funds into conducting its own tests of the medium. Is this correct?
Sort of! I didn't mean it quite so literally. What I mean is that *if* a person genuinely believes that they have "the gift", and they wish to be taken seriously about this (why wouldn't they?), then it seems to me that they'd want to "prove" this. It doesn't take much to see that this is an area of human endeavour plagued by cheats and frauds. The onus should lie on the person to demonstrate they *aren't* one of the frauds.

If so, how do you think this would work out in practice?
Well, the devil's in the details again I suppose. A day's research into this topic, paying particular attention to the critics, would be enough to give anyone the basic idea of the counter arguments - so think about what you think you can do, and how to prove it. I've seen several people use the JREF forums to develop a basic test - and then fail it, which lead them to question whether they were on the right path or not. Test yourself first using the same criteria your critics would use. Only "go public" once you have some confidence that you can answer your critics.

If you want a short, sharp answer I'd say "take the JREF test". It's simple, cost effective, scientifically controlled, and if you pass you are (a) a lot richer and (b) well on the way to having access to the "scientific community" which can then proceed to develop the detailed protocols to determine just what is happening.

A short-hand guide to proving psi :

1. Discover a psi talent in yourself.
2. Read about the subject, try to figure out for yourself what your talent's limits are.
3. Get together (in private) with a few people you trust and challenge them to "disprove" your talent.
4. If you survive the "best tests" that your friends can devise, then contact the JREF and ask them to use the same test protocol on you.
5. If the JREF rejects the protocol, ask them why and what you should change. Adopt the modified protocol and return to step 3
6. If the JREF accepts the protocol, take the test.
7. If you fail, perhaps you aren't thinking things through well enough - go back to 2.
8. If you pass the test, proper scientific testing and validation is only a media conference away.

[SteveGrenard]

Loki - sounds like a good plan. But oh wait a sec, how do we know it is not being done? No data. How do we know how many people who are mediums apply to JREF and end up in the round file? We don't. A few of the kookier claims make it to the commentary but a true report? No such thing.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Loki - sounds like a good plan. But oh wait a sec, how do we know it is not being done? No data. How do we know how many people who are mediums apply to JREF and end up in the round file? We don't. A few of the kookier claims make it to the commentary but a true report? No such thing.
Your assumptions are that:
1. There are people who are mediums.
2. They apply to the $1 million challenge.
3. They end up in the round file.
And you conclude that there is no such thing as a true report.
What am I missing here?

[SteveGrenard]

No assumptions here. Please check the question marks at the end of these, er, questions. They were not statements, they were questions ..made in the absence of data which apparently JREF is unwilling to publish. This last is an assumption since fact is they do not release this data.

[roger]

Protocol:

Select 20 terminal patients.

Give each a randomly generated 8 character alphanumeric password.

Wait for them to die.

Give the medium the name of the patient.

Have the medium get the alphanumeric password.

A hit will consist of 7 out of 8 of the characters being correct and in the correct position.

(assume normal double blind controls, I didn't feel like typing for 1/2 hour to specify that kind of stuff)


The # of patients and definition of a hit was just basically made up by me without any statistical analysis for relevance, let's not get bogged down with that, these numbers can be easily modified without changing the basic structure of the test.

rationale for this structure: mediums often claim that they cannot get whole names, etc. But they do claim to be able to get letters.


So, adjust the actual requirements for a 'hit' to be in line with what the specific medium claims they can perform, but in a way that the trial will be able to determine if the results are statistically relevant or not.

We can bicker about the details, but that isn't the point (until we reach general concensus). What do you think of the general structure? I think it can be adjusted so that scientists and mediums will accept the statistical analysis, I think it requires no judgement for determining a 'hit', and it tests what mediums claim to be able to do - identify single letters. Although I didn't describe it, it would be easy to control this experiment to ensure that the medium has no non-paranormal way to access the passwords.

Thoughts?

I will go on record, Steve, that unless someone finds a fatal flaw in this protocol, I would accept it as very strong evidence if several trials reliably generated statistically significant results.

[Ed]

We might simply start with Houdini. Did he not leave a message with his lawyer/wife that would proove he was communicating? Funny none of the frauds have ever gotten it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No assumptions here. Please check the question marks at the end of these, er, questions. They were not statements, they were questions ..made in the absence of data which apparently JREF is unwilling to publish. This last is an assumption since fact is they do not release this data.
"This data"?
First of all, it would be "these data", if there were any. And there aren't. When the president of NYASk and I went to test a person who had claimed to be able to mentally control the illumination level of a lightbulb in his living room (at Randi's behest), I brought a camcorder and was unable to observe or record any changes.
You want this datum published?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Ed
We might simply start with Houdini. Did he not leave a message with his lawyer/wife that would proove he was communicating? Funny none of the frauds have ever gotten it.

There is some question as to whether Arthur Ford got the message. However, beyond this, the methodology is flawed since Houdinis wife or lawyer would have to know the contents of the message in order to verify it. If they didn't, and lets say it was in a sealed envelope in the safe, they would at some point have to open it to find out if what the medium was saying was correct and then they would know what the message is anyway and it could never be used again. In the flap over Ford, it was suggested Houdini's wife knew the message and somehow had tipped Ford to it or let it slip. How much of this is innuendo is hard to say at this late date.

Ian Stevenson proposed a combination lock test. A new combination lock is purchased and given to a person prior to their death who then sets the lock combination and tells no one. If the medium gets the combination it is tried on the lock and if it opens then there is some pretty good evidence there. If it doesn't open, the test is not tainted since the trials could continue with other mediums or in subsequent sittings with the same medium. Giving people a code ahead of time is a one shot deal.
Once those codes or messages are known by living people we can no longer guarantee their integrity.

Insofar as anyone is aware nobody has ever gotten Stevenson's lock test correct but we do not know how many of such locks are out there, how many people who had them have died and, of those, how many were the subject of
attempted mediumistic contact. Stevenson, beyond proposing this, has never published anymore on it so I don't know if there is an ongoing project anywhere with this.

[roger]

Another test proposal:

My previous test required terminally ill patients to remember a long, nonsensical sequence. It would be easy to forget such a thing, especially for somebody ill and in pain. Plus, the test has the disadvantage of needing to be run over many years.

How about this:

Mediums often state how the deceased is still watching over the people here. Presumably that means that they can see and communicate with this world, at least through a medium.

Therefore, get 2 mediums. Separate them. Generate the letters A-Z randomly, in real time, one at a time (real time so there is no list that can be leaked prior to the test), and feed them to medium #1. Medium #1 communicates with a dead person. Medium #2 contacts that dead person and gets the letter and writes it down. Do this x number of times. Compare the two lists.

possible objections:

1. mediums often state they cannot control who they contact.
2. Clairavoyance, if it exists, could be used to 'cheat' this test.

I suggest that if we find two mediums who do not claim objection 1, then if this trial is successful we will at least have proof of the paranormal, if not life after death. Further tests could determine the type of paranormal activity that is being displayed.

[SteveGrenard]

Are you suggesting that the spirit communicator come up with all 26 letters of the alphabet as randomized?

Arthur Berger did an experiment with two mediums and a single purported deceased communicator. He had medium#1 give the communicator the choice of a simple mathematical question involving choosing two out of the numbers 1 to 10.

The communicator would choose two of the numbers and add them together. Berger wanted to see if a second medium, who did not know the first one, could contact the same communicator and get the sum. e.g. communicator chooses numbers 1 and 2, adds them and gets 3.

This worked and for Berger helped to validate the communication. In fact the skeptical phlosopher, Antony Flew, a well known CSICOP member, even agreed to write the foreword to Berger's treatise studying multiple mediums and single communicators.

(Aristocracy of the Dead: New Findings in Post-Mortem Survival).

Berger also concluded that being dead did not confer any special extended abilities on the thought processes or cognitive abilities of the decedents such as being able to remember a string of randomized alphabet letters or long passcodes anymore so than they could while alive.

[roger]

Yes, that is what I am suggesting. For example, say the person is given AXJEIOPS to remember.

Hits would include:
AXJEIOPS
AXJEIOPI - last letter wrong
AXJVIOPS - E missed as V


misses would include:

XAJEIOPS - so close but the X and A are reversed. That is 2 misses.

That's just an example - if you think XAJEIOPS should be accepted as a hit, then sure, we will count it a hit, but this would have to be agreed upon prior to the start of the test, and the # of trials would be increased to ensure that the results are statistically significant. All I want to do is prove that information was transferred, in a way that is very easy to analyze statistically.

Your wording of the Berger test confuses me. The phrase "choice of a simple mathematical question involving choosing two out of the numbers 1 to 10" implies, to me, that there is more information content here than a random generation of the numbers 1 through 10. I also wonder about the requirements for getting the sum. I'm not drawing any conclusions, I'd have to read the paper to determine the reasons for this protocol as opposed to my simpler protocol below:

I would love to see a study where the numbers 1 through 10 are generated through a real random number generator, and communicated between the two mediums. That's it. No sums, no choosing of the numbers by a human, nothing.

After all, what we are trying to do is very simple. Let's say we wanted to prove that you and me are communicating, not using psi, but say email or the phone. An easy way to do that is with the protocol above, generate random numbers, I email them to you, you reproduce the list, and a third, previously blinded person compares the two list. It is just so easy to show that we either did or did not communicate. Experimental robustness is required to prove we didn't cheat, but that's not very hard, just tedious.

Anyway, thank you for the cite - if I have some free time I'll take a look at it (I'm not a researcher in this subject, I just dropped in this thread because it looked interesting to me)

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks for explaining your idea. If you enter Aristocracy of the Dead etc in a used book service you should be able to get a copy of the treatise for less than 10 bucks or so. Here is an article I have on Berger's research. Berger was a New York and Miami, Florida attorney and had no interest in the subject until a medium once found a missing will for an estate he was representing. Berger drew it up but the client (who became deceased) took all signed (executed) copies with him and hid them, causing a major problem for Berger. The family consulted a medium and she said the spirit of the deceased told them where to look. They did and it was there, verified and accepted by the court. Berger probably had an unsigned draft in his posession to make a comparison. I dont know all the details.
------------------------------------------------
see links below to find this article.

[Pyrrho]

Steve's article was written by Associated Press writer A. J. Dickerson in March, 1987 and is copyrighted by the Associated Press. Not online as far as I can tell, but here's a link to a Google cache:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:yB_YzW8wVw8J:www.skepticfiles.org/mys1/aftrlife.htm+More+people+must+die+before+a+Surviva l+Research+Foundation+experiment+can+succeed.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Whoops, here's the direct link.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys1/aftrlife.htm

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Berger also concluded that being dead did not confer any special extended abilities on the thought processes or cognitive abilities of the decedents such as being able to remember a string of randomized alphabet letters or long passcodes anymore so than they could while alive.
I'm sorry...meaning no disrespect...but this is so damn funny...Mark Twain would have gotten a huge kick out of it. :D

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Steve's article was written by Associated Press writer A. J. Dickerson in March, 1987 and is copyrighted by the Associated Press. Not online as far as I can tell, but here's a link to a Google cache:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:yB_YzW8wVw8J:www.skepticfiles.org/mys1/aftrlife.htm+More+people+must+die+before+a+Surviva l+Research+Foundation+experiment+can+succeed.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Whoops, here's the direct link.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys1/aftrlife.htm



Pyrrho: thank you for verifying the bona fide of this article which I had a copy of without attribution. I will delete it per forum rules and refer anyone interested to the above websites.

[SteveGrenard]

I'm sorry...meaning no disrespect...but this is so damn funny...Mark Twain would have gotten a huge kick out of it.


I'll tell you what is even more damn funny than the above Pyrrho. One of the series of mediumistic readings that Berger studies and discusses in his treatise was with none other than the deceased Samuel L. Clemens.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I'll tell you what is even more damn funny than the above Pyrrho. One of the series of mediumistic readings that Berger studies and discusses in his treatise was with none other than the deceased Samuel L. Clemens.
Now that I need to read. Considering Twain's attitude toward mediums, the irony is incredible.

[Loki]

SteveGrenard,

Loki - sounds like a good plan.
Thanks, glad you liked it. It was, however, offered only as a quick example of how I'd like to see mediums approach proving their psi powers. Most mediums appear content to assume they have the power, and not bother with testing at all.

But oh wait a sec, how do we know it is not being done? No data.
That's right - no data. Not a single example of a medium claiming to have been rejected/prevented from taking the JREF test.

How do we know how many people who are mediums apply to JREF and end up in the round file? We don't.
You seem to think it's a one way street - the only possible "source of data" is the JREF. I don't know about you steve but if I :

(a) was convinced I had a psi power;
(b) had devised a testing procedure that appeared (to me) to generate positive results;
(c) had approached the JREF for testing and been rejected in a way which I considered to be "unfair" or "unreasonable", I'd be protesting as loudly as possible about this.

In fact, I've seen at least two examples of this. On the forum, "Edge" has been discussing/protesting/examining his dowsing failure when tested by the JREF late last year/early this year. The "weather controller" (can't remember his name) has a web site where he details his claim against the JREF, and the results of his preliminary test. He claims he passed, Randi says he didn't. It's all availabe if you wish to read it.

The point? - we both agree there's a lack of information of "mediums who approached the JREF, were tested, and failed". You imply this is because this has happened often, but the JREF is "suppressing" the information. I'm suggesting it's because it hasn't happened. Happy to be shown the reports from dozens of unhappy mediums who have recorded the details of their JREF preliminary test failures, and the reasons for believing they were unfairly ignored/rejected. Do you have a copy ....?

[Vitnir]

Personally I don't think it would be that hard for a medium to prove himself. There is just one catch, you have to be a real medium to pull it off.

Originally posted by Mike D.
I think many here would agree that mediumship cannot be proven to be real without a medium or mediums producing statistically significant hits during scientific testing using an air-tight double blind protocol. And that furthermore, the results must be published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals.
This is the first major step. Has this ever been done? I don't know.

But even this, I think for most here, is not enough to establish the reality of mediumship. I think it would probably be further agreed that there must be replication of the results by independent researchers.
This is the second and equally vital step. If you can get cold fusion once in your own lab but never again anywhere else it was just a fluke. The number of replications required is impossible to say, the implication of just one independent replication would be massive.

My question to scientifically-minded members of the forum is: how many mediums must be involved in these tests, and how many scientists must replicate positive results, and how many replications would it take for l) you personally to accept that mediumship is real; and 2) for the scientific community at large to accept that it is real?
This is the last step. Reaching consensus in the scientific community, at this point nobody really challenges the theory.

At the first step where you can present a study with significant results the response should be: "This are interesting findings and we have to look closer at this". And that's it, you really have to wait for the second step before any conclusions can be made.

At the second step things are really different, we have to start thinking about the world where such a thing is possible.

In addition to the question of replication, would you say that a coherent theory of how mediumship fits in with already existing scientific knowledge would be a prerequistie for acceptance of it as a reality by the scientific community?
No I don't think it is required. In medicine, although I can't think of any examples right now, there are drugs that we know work and we use them although we don't know exactly how they work. It would however give a lot more credability to it. Personally I would require both replication and some kind of theory that makes sense before I could accept it.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Vitnir
This is the first major step [testing using an air-tight double blind protocol]. Has this ever been done? I don't know.


Vitnir,

Robertson and Roy have tested mediums using a protocol they developed, and the resulting paper is now apparently in the last stages of peer review. Skeptic Mark Tidwell has favorably reviewed the Robertson/Roy protocol here:

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy2.htm

Mike

[Vitnir]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Robertson and Roy have tested mediums using a protocol they developed, and the resulting paper is now apparently in the last stages of peer review.
Sounds good, when I asked "Has this ever been done" I ment peer reviewed studies like this, not reports from some institute.

Skeptic Mark Tidwell has favorably reviewed the Robertson/Roy protocol
Research greatly benefits when different scientist can use common tools, many studies from my own field, Indoor Air Quality, suffers from the fact that many scientists have used their own protcols which may make comparisons with other research difficult.

I haven't read these journals very in dept, there are 159 journals dealing with psychology in general (PubMed search) but my general impression is that no conclusive results for the existence of psi has been found in the last like 150 years?

[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 currently undergoing peer review and awaiting publication.

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/ )

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/)

[Vitnir]

Originally posted by 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

Alright I'l bite, do you have a reference? I want to read an abstract before I cough up 5 dollars for a copy and it's easier to find with a reference.

[SteveGrenard]

No I do not have any place online you can read an abstract or the full study unless you become a member at $45 a year of the SPR. I actually had to fax copies of the studies to Mark Tidwell for review since he was not a member of the SPR at the time but he is now.

There are two parts of the study published with the third, based on a tighter protcol, yet to be published.

Sorry

edited to add:

okay, I was able to get those abstracts for you.

See below.

[SteveGrenard]

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/

[Vitnir]

These two papers are methodological papers if I understand the abstracts correctly. They are written with the purpose to discuss the validity of a study we have yet not seen. I'l just have to wait for the results of that one. It's unfortunate that the journal isn't indexed in a database, it's a lot easier to search for articles then.

[Loki]

Steve,

Since I'm sure you want to be as fair and unbiased as possible in presenting information, perhaps we can add the link to Mark's initial report based on his readings of the report?

From here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy1.htm)
Until then, this paper stands as a representative of everything that is wrong with the current style of scientific investigation of mediumship abilities, namely multiple inadequate controls and subjectively determined criteria.

In particular, Mark notes that there are at least 5 possible "non-paranormal" factors that were not (adequately) controlled for in preparing this report:

1. A "different attitude" between the recipient and the non-recipient.
2. A different cultural background.
3. Deduction of information from recipient’s appearance.
4. Deduction of information from recipient’s body language initially and/or verbal responses during the proffering of statements by the medium.
5. Deliberate cheating on the part of the medium.

[SteveGrenard]

Loki:

If you took the trouble you would see that link given just a few posts above. Mike D's post on 10/5/03 at 10:50 PM. The knee jerk reactions, failure to read the material that came before and other argumentive posts are typical here. I therefore protest your facetious and erroneous statement that we should include Mark Tidwell's report. We already did. And by the way Loki, were it not for the fact that I went out of my way to personally fax both these articles to Mark Tidwell, he would not have had them to write this report. So please, spare us the indignation.



And your welcome Vitnir. Anytime I can make a special effort and go out of my way to meet your requests ....

[SteveGrenard]

Vitnir:

These two papers are methodological papers if I understand the abstracts correctly. They are written with the purpose to discuss the validity of a study we have yet not seen. I'l just have to wait for the results of that one. It's unfortunate that the journal isn't indexed in a database, it's a lot easier to search for articles then.


I was sort of waiting for MikeD to respond to this but since he has not apparently done so, I am forced to come out of retirement here and correct some assumptions you make above.

1. The first paper is most certainly not a methodology paper although methodology is an important part of the experiments. The second paper IS an introspective look at that methodology and a preview of what improvements have been made for the third paper where said improvements have been applied to actual trials.

2. The JSPR is most certainly now indexed in a database with full text retrievable for over 100 years of data. Some of it is free access, some requires you to be a member. If you visit the Journals website and follow the link at the bottom you will reach that database. I obtained your abstracts from the free access part. I could not reprint the entire paper as the database is not complete and these are not yet available but even if they were they would exceed the propriety for posting here even though I could easily obtain the author and SPR's permission to do so if I wanted to.

In fairness to Robertson and Roy, I also had the occasion of letting them see Mark's comments. I had originally thought he sent them to the authors but apparently they have not seen them. They have now, as did M. Keen.

Responses follows. I hope Mark has a chance to see these.:

lst Communication:

It is obvious that the writer has not understood the experiments fully.

In the Introduction ( paper two) no 5 the medium could not cheat - due to the strictness of the protocol - they do not know who the recipients are.

Tape recording is a good idea, and has been done- the whole porceedings were also video recorded for one whole session.by the BBC.( in this session the results were outstandingly good)

However due to the time factor statements HAVE to be written down individually as the medium speaks. Each line being one statement.

We have found no evidence of the sitters second guessing each other.

Any sitter in any experiment has to judge - does this statement apply to me? eg The recipient lives in Xmas cottage, they own two houses, there is an Eastern type fountain in their back garden, the garden is full of Eastern pottery.

Under the heading Changes

THE participants and medium are NOT IN the same room - the medium has never seen the audience.

All of the answers are Yes or No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Communication

Forgive the curtness of my last e mail as my mother has recently been rushed into hospital and my nerve endings are a bit raw. Now that I have had time to look again at the article by MT, I find further flaws in his understanding of the experiments.

In a summary of procedure pg 2, Mediums have Never been escorted into a room and put behind a screen. The mediums are placed in a completely separate room apart from the audience, before the audience begins to arrive.

The medium has not seen the (audience) room at all before experimentation begins.

Pg 2 second para,third last line:

the use of the word weighting is incorrect in this context.

After an experimental session of six "readings" being given by a medium to an audience of approx 25/30 - the sheets are gathered by the experimenter who does not know the identities of the recipients.

6 sheets times 30 = 180 sheets for reduction. The experimenter has to check ( for a start) that each person has totalled the ticks correctly on each sheet. Basic reduction time is approx 1.5 hours. After an experimental session of approx 4 hours, the experimenter has lost the will to live and the data is reduced soon after. If in the future a computer program is written for this it will make life easier.
The sentence beginning "Once the analysis is completed..." is also wrong.

Each person's data is analysed in the same manner regardless of whether or not they were a recipient or non recipient. it is only AFTER all the data has been reduced that the identities of recipients are known to the experimenter.

Finally re - Initial Comments 2

We had never used ( at the time) mediums of "celebrity status" although Gordon Smith is now being recognised more widely.We have not observed any difference in the audience responses with a "confident" or "sensitive" voice. The statements made are either right or wrong.

The writer says that the voice MAY convey an emotional impact - this reminds me of the old saying that if your Auntie had testicles she would be your Uncle.

Tricia Robertson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Keen who has reviewed Tidwell as well as Robertson's reply, comments further:

"Mr Tidwell in his second critique strongly commends the binary system of yes-or-no answers which would appear to him to remove the need for a cumbersome system of weighting. It has always struck me that one of the great merits of the Robertson-Roy work has been the use of a simple non-subjective weighting system. A straight binary approach would produce a wholly unbalanced and unrepresentative picture, since it would give equal weight to the statement "Your great grandfather is in spirit" (30 answers in the affirmative) to the statement "Your father's name was Angus McGillivray" (one affirmative). By an automatic weighting, the latter statement is valued at thirty times the former. I am sure Mr Tidwell, who was frank enough to warmly commend the protocol adopted, would acknowledge that some such weighting is vital."

[Loki]

Steve,

If you took the trouble you would see that link given just a few posts above.
The link I posted was to the *initial* report by Mark whihc discussed the *first* R&R paper. The link you refer to is to the second. The difference is significant, since the link that Mike D offered, and which you are referring to, deals with "how to improve the protocol", not "what results did we find".
I therefore protest your facetious and erroneous statement that we should include Mark Tidwell's report. We already did.
Protest noted, along with the erroneous data it was based upon.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Loki
Steve,
The link I posted was to the *initial* report by Mark whihc discussed the *first* R&R paper. The link you refer to is to the second. The difference is significant, since the link that Mike D offered, and which you are referring to, deals with "how to improve the protocol", not "what results did we find".


Loki,

It should be noted that Robertson and Roy have completed a study using the improved protocol that Mark commented favorably on in the link I provided. The Robertson/Roy paper reporting on *that* study is apparently now in the last phases of peer review and will be published in due time. I have no idea of what the results were using the improved protocol, and I guess I'll have to wait until the paper is published to find out. The reason I provided the link to Mark's second article was that I'm particulary interested in "air-tight" protocols (or approximations thereof) for testing mediumship, and so the fact that Robertson and Roy used the improved protocol in a new study of mediums that was done *after* the study using the earlier protocol that Mark was critical of, was of interest to me.

It should also be noted that Robertson and Roy themselves offered criticism of their earlier protocol and realized that there were ways it could be tightened.

Also, Mark's second article contained a link to his first one, so his first one was easily findable by anyone reading the second one.

Mike

[SteveGrenard]

I have been advised that the new R&R study will be published in the January, 2004 edition of the JSPR. In addition that issue wil also contain the Jacqui Poole murder case investigation.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have been advised that the new R&R study will be published in the January, 2004 edition of the JSPR. In addition that issue wil also contain the Jacqui Poole murder case investigation.

Thanks for the info, Steve! Should be an interesting issue!

Mike

[Vitnir]

When I said that the journal wasn't indexed in a database I'm talking about the two biggest databases, Medline and Science Citation Index (SCI). The Journal of Parapscychology is indexed in SCI and it's even a online full text journal at my library, the thing about databases is that they can search several journals at the same time, I could not find SPR in these databases that's what I said nothing else. You can naturally go to each and every journals homepage and go through titles and abstracts but I find that inefficient.

The first paper appears to be a methodological paper since they are investigating the hypothesis that there is no difference between recipients and non-recipients and thus investigates the validity. When you are dealing with human subjective responses like this it's important to make a preliminary study to make sure there is no apparent flaws that you have missed yourself. This is pretty common when you use questionnaires.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Uhhn Steve, it might be a good idea to read the posts, we were actually several who took the question seriously, before you made your prediction (sorry to disturb you with facts). Well, at leat nobody will accuse you of cheating :rolleyes: .


Hans

They may have taken the question seriously, but where are the answers? What would it take? They stated what they would need to see first, find out what they are really trying to prove, prove the existance of something else first. I haven't read one real answer.

Nobody said "THIS WILL CONVINCE ME THAT MEDIUMSHIP IS REAL" and stated what would convince them.


My answer is, I don't know what it would take to convince me that mediumship is real. I don't know that I would believe even if scientists offered enough proof to get it printed in peer reviewed scientific journals.

What would it take for other skeptics to be convinced that mediumship is real? I can't think of anything that would convince me, other than having my dear departed grandmother reveal herself to me and tell me where the hell grandpa burried his money
:roll:

[Starrman]

If I walked into JE's office tomorrow (he would have no idea that I was coming) and he could tell me the two nick-names my uncle had for me, I would believe. I do not want to know what letter they began with, or other words they sounded like, no guessing games, no second chances. I just need to hear them plain as day, two words, one syllable each. That would convince me, personally.

Sadly, I hear the process does not work that way, and I am supposed to settle for the nickname of the kid bagging groceries two blocks down away if it so happens to fit with his guess... er, I mean communication from the spirit world.

[Leroy]

posted by Starrman - Sadly, I hear the process does not work that way, and I am supposed to settle for the nickname of the kid bagging groceries two blocks down away if it so happens to fit with his guess... er, I mean communication from the spirit world.

That is difficult for me to comprehend. If JE can see pink roses, or red roses, or a street fair, why the hell can't he see the letters of a nickname? I am seeing the letters "CUSTER"

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Leroy


They may have taken the question seriously, but where are the answers? What would it take? They stated what they would need to see first, find out what they are really trying to prove, prove the existance of something else first. I haven't read one real answer.

Nobody said "THIS WILL CONVINCE ME THAT MEDIUMSHIP IS REAL" and stated what would convince them.


My answer is, I don't know what it would take to convince me that mediumship is real. I don't know that I would believe even if scientists offered enough proof to get it printed in peer reviewed scientific journals.

What would it take for other skeptics to be convinced that mediumship is real? I can't think of anything that would convince me, other than having my dear departed grandmother reveal herself to me and tell me where the hell grandpa burried his money
:roll:

This is what would convince me that mediumship is real - it would have to be real. The original question implies that skeptics are being obstinate in face of all sorts of significant or meaningful evidence. There is no significant or meaningful evidence. There does, however, seem to a limitless number of fakers. It would seem to me, if there were any real mediums out there they would be only too eager to differentiate themselves from all of the fakers and would willingly go out of their way to demonstrate their authenticity. They would be willing and able to jump through any hoops we skeptics could erect. Lets face it, it would extremely easy to demonstrate such an ability to the satisfaction of virtually any reasonable person should someone choose to do so. All of this crud about protocols and studies is just obfuscation and, in fact, it is not the skeptics who hide behind the facade of science, but rather the promoters of the paranormal who do so.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Leroy


That is difficult for me to comprehend. If JE can see pink roses, or red roses, or a street fair, why the hell can't he see the letters of a nickname? I am seeing the letters "CUSTER"
He just doesn't OK, Geez! Mediumship communication is "difficult"! Maybe his personal frame of reference has never experienced the written word "Custer"! :D

This is basically the gist of the excuses we're given as to why he cannot accomplish the above.

[voidx]

Hey I just had a brain fart. If for example the street fair reading. It turned out to be a memorial parade. Now, I myself have never been to a memorial parade, but I could imagine what one would look like, complete with uniforms and a sign stating the name of the parade. Would this not be part of my frame of reference. If a mediums spirit guides can zip through his catalogue of references, couldn't they also just invoke his imagination, or modify a reference like an Irish cop memorial parade depicted in every other hollywood cop movie, and change the name, or add a banner with the actual parade coming through? Not too far of a stretch for mediumship, if you ask me, considering what else they are asking us to believe. :D

[Dogwood]

First, I want to thank Steve for forwarding my reviews of the Robertson and Roy papers to the authors, and to Montague Keen. It was Steve who first introduced me to these papers and who faxed them to me just so I could read them. I had no plans to write reviews at that time. Thanks again Steve.

Second, I'd like to encourage everyone to register to view the contents of the JSPR on-line archives. This is the resource for papers on paranormal research. Love it or hate it, there is no better on-line database for those wishing to make informed commentary on this field.

And now, I'll repond to Tricia Robertson's comments on my review. Dr. Robertson's comments are in bold.


lst Communication:

It is obvious that the writer has not understood the experiments fully.

In the Introduction ( paper two) no 5 the medium could not cheat - due to the strictness of the protocol - they do not know who the recipients are.

This is a very strange comment. Although it is of course quite possible that that I did not understand the experiments fully, I am actually referring to the authors own words from the first paper here. The statement of mine in question in the second review is as follows:

The authors did however acknowledge several "normal" factors (as opposed to paranormal factors) that they considered as possible contributors to this gap. These factors consist of:

1. A "different attitude" between the recipient and the non-recipient.
2. A different cultural background.
3. Deduction of information from recipient’s appearance.
4. Deduction of information from recipient’s body language initially and/or verbal responses during the proffering of statements by the medium.
5. Deliberate cheating on the part of the medium.

I paraphrased a tad, but this comes directly from the authors own words in the first paper, which I believe I made quite clear. Here is the exact text.

We now list non-psychical factors that might produce the gap between RR and RN.

On the recipient's and non-recipient's side there could be:—

R1 A different attitude.
R2 A different cultural background (religious, educational, geographical, etc.).

On the medium's side there could be:-
M1 Deduction of information from recipient's appearance.
M2 Deduction of information from recipient's body-language initially and/or verbal responses during the proffering of statements by the medium.
M3 Deliberate cheating on the part of the medium.

I can only conclude that not only did Dr. Robertson not understand my comments, but she apparantly didn't understand her own paper.


Tape recording is a good idea, and has been done- the whole porceedings were also video recorded for one whole session.by the BBC.( in this session the results were outstandingly good)

That is good to know. Dr. Robertson and other readers should understand, that my review was based on a proposed protocol, not the one that actually took place. The protocol described in the first paper mentioned manual dictation, not tape recording, and it was not clear which method would be used in the forthcoming experiment.

However due to the time factor statements HAVE to be written down individually as the medium speaks. Each line being one statement.

I have no objections to this, as long as a complete transcript of the original tape recording (and copies of the recording itself) are made available to subsequent investigators.

We have found no evidence of the sitters second guessing each other.

Also good to hear. But as I mentioned in my review, this was a minor concern, but I still believe a valid one. There is no reason for the subjects to be within each others view or hearing range. Isolation is a good control for several reasons. And I have to wonder what evidence one would expect to find of such second-guessing. Why not just remove the possibility all together?

Under the heading Changes

THE participants and medium are NOT IN the same room - the medium has never seen the audience.

All of the answers are Yes or No
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Communication

Forgive the curtness of my last e mail as my mother has recently been rushed into hospital and my nerve endings are a bit raw. Now that I have had time to look again at the article by MT, I find further flaws in his understanding of the experiments.

In a summary of procedure pg 2, Mediums have Never been escorted into a room and put behind a screen. The mediums are placed in a completely separate room apart from the audience, before the audience begins to arrive.

The medium has not seen the (audience) room at all before experimentation begins.

I don't believe I ever suggested that the mediums or participants would or could see each other. but the proposed protocol makes it quite clear that they are in the same room and seperated by a screen. I quote from page 163 of the JSPR Volume 65.3 July 2003 (The second paper):

Under the heading The Procedure

3. The medium is led into the room by Investigator B and seated by behind a screen which prevents the medium from seeing the seats. Additionally the medium's chair is placed so that he faces away from the rows of seats.

Perhaps the authors thought better of this and put the medium in a seperate room. However, not being psychic myself, I don't see how I could have been expected to know this in advance. I only had the proposed protocol to work from.


Pg 2 second para,third last line:

the use of the word weighting is incorrect in this context.

Okay. Not sure how, but I'm willing to acknowledge errors if I'm told how I erred.

After an experimental session of six "readings" being given by a medium to an audience of approx 25/30 - the sheets are gathered by the experimenter who does not know the identities of the recipients.

6 sheets times 30 = 180 sheets for reduction. The experimenter has to check ( for a start) that each person has totalled the ticks correctly on each sheet. Basic reduction time is approx 1.5 hours. After an experimental session of approx 4 hours, the experimenter has lost the will to live and the data is reduced soon after. If in the future a computer program is written for this it will make life easier.
The sentence beginning "Once the analysis is completed..." is also wrong.

Again, not sure how. Here is the original text:

15 Investigator A asks each participant to read carefully the statements
made by the medium and tick off those that he feels are relevant to his life.

16 When the participants have finished they are asked to add up the number
of ticks they have made and write the total at the foot of the page.

17 The forms are collected by Investigator B.

18 At some future time Investigator B transfers the data from the forms to
the standard data reduction Form B and calculates the weight to be attached
to each statement.

19 Investigator B makes a copy of the completed Form B.

20 Investigator A makes a copy of the number he had previously chosen at
random to specify the chair the recipient would sit on.

21 Investigators A and B now exchange their copies of Form B and the
number chosen at random, checking with each other that the copies duplicate
the originals.

And here is my summary:

While the medium is speaking, Investigator B records the statements made, which are written as a list on a standardized form. When the reading is finished, Investigator B makes n number of copies and distributes them to the participants. The forms are labeled by the number of the chairs and by the names of the recipients, the date and the place. The participants read the statements carefully and tick off the statements that they feel are relevant to their life. When finished, the participants total the number of ticks at the bottom of the page. The forms are collected and the data undergoes standard reduction weighting as described previously (1). Once the analysis is completed, Investigator A reveals the number of the recipient for further processing.



If I can be shown what is erroneous about my summary, I will happily retract it.

Each person's data is analysed in the same manner regardless of whether or not they were a recipient or non recipient. it is only AFTER all the data has been reduced that the identities of recipients are known to the experimenter.

Yes, I believe I mentioned that.

Finally re - Initial Comments 2

We had never used ( at the time) mediums of "celebrity status" although Gordon Smith is now being recognised more widely.We have not observed any difference in the audience responses with a "confident" or "sensitive" voice. The statements made are either right or wrong.

I don't believe I suggested that the experimenters had or even would, merely that this might be an issue if "celebrity mediums" such as John Edward or James Van Praagh were used. This wouldn't be a concern if the recipients were completely isolated from the mediums. A good idea under any circumstance.

The writer says that the voice MAY convey an emotional impact - this reminds me of the old saying that if your Auntie had testicles she would be your Uncle.

Tricia Robertson

And if my Grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Very cute. Unfortunately, Dr. Robertson doesn't seem to take very seriously, the very important issue of complete sensory isolation between the medium and the recipient. If true non-sensory information is taking place, then such isolation should not be a factor. I find it difficult to understand why the potential influence of voice would not be an obvious concern to someone investigating a field that is historically wrought with fraud and deceit.

My thanks to Dr. Robertson for her replies.

I'll respond to M. Keen's comments in a later post.

[Loki]

Mark,

I'm getting confused! Your initial report was a review of a completed study, correct? Your second review was over a proposed protocol for a new study? This new study, using the new protocol, has been completed, but not yet pusblished?

Then what is Dr Robertson referring too? It sounds like she's describing the latest study, done under the new protocol.

[Loki]

Mark,

From your first report on the initial study...
1. A "different attitude" between the recipient and the non-recipient.
Essentially, rater bias. The recipient knows that they have been read and may be eager to validate their experience by scoring their results higher. Conversely the non-recipients know that they have not been read and may therefore not consider the scoring process as seriously. This is a very serious flaw already before the statements are introduced into the weighting process. The authors state, "The problem of assessing this factor’s influence on the results is formidable and it might seem impossible to devise a means of obtaining a solution." It’s hardly impossible to obtain a solution to this, but it is important to try.
IT's possible to remove this if everyone is read! A different protocol :

1. Medium in one room, sitter in adjacent room.
2. Medium (or researcher) writes down anything and everything the medium wants to say. No communication *at all* between medium and sitter ( sitter cannot hear medium).
3. Repeat for sitter 2 and sitter 3.
4. Take the 3 transcripts, hand a copy to each sitter, have them choose which one is theirs.

This also eliminates the "weighting" issue, since it all boils down to "Yes" or "No" in regard to "do sitters find their own reading".

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by Loki
Mark,

I'm getting confused! Your initial report was a review of a completed study, correct?

Correct.

Your second review was over a proposed protocol for a new study?

Also correct.

This new study, using the new protocol, has been completed, but not yet pusblished?

That is my understanding.

Then what is Dr Robertson referring too? It sounds like she's describing the latest study, done under the new protocol.

That's my take too. It seems that some changes must have been made since the protocol proposed in the second paper I reviewed, (Changes for the better it seems). Otherwise, her comments do not make sense to me.

[SteveGrenard]

I have forwarded Mark's comments to Tricia Robertson and Professor Roy.
(2 AM UK Time Wednesday).

The third R&R study will be published in 2.5 months time as I mentioned above.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by Loki
Mark,

From your first report on the initial study...

IT's possible to remove this if everyone is read! A different protocol :

1. Medium in one room, sitter in adjacent room.
2. Medium (or researcher) writes down anything and everything the medium wants to say. No communication *at all* between medium and sitter ( sitter cannot hear medium).
3. Repeat for sitter 2 and sitter 3.
4. Take the 3 transcripts, hand a copy to each sitter, have them choose which one is theirs.

This also eliminates the "weighting" issue, since it all boils down to "Yes" or "No" in regard to "do sitters find their own reading".

This would be my choice as well for a preferred protocol, but with more sitters and therefore more copies to consider. Schwartz has come the closest to doing this so far, but made the poor choice, in my opinion, of only giving the sitters two readings to choose from, one being their own.

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have forwarded Mark's comments to Tricia Robertson and Professor Roy.
(2 AM UK Time Wednesday).

The third R&R study will be published in 2.5 months time as I mentioned above.

Thanks again Steve.

[Loki]

Mark,

This would be my choice as well for a preferred protocol, but with more sitters and therefore more copies to consider.
The more the better I guess up to a point - at some stage, there simply becomes too many transcripts for the sitters to really evaluate them all clearly, and so the order in which the transcipts are read becomes a potential factor. Three or four should eliminate this while still leaving (over a reasonably large number of trials) enough of a base to draw a conclusion from? Of course this sort of protocol is really t