Some References To Intriguing Characters

[dharlow]

As the thread to which I posted has been centered around a different debate, I have decided to repost under this new topic. This was in response to Slimshady's request for some references to some interesting supernatural phenomena. It was asked if I might repost this somewhere else, so I have.

Post was as follows:

I should state that my main area of interest is in that which may perhaps be considered the most incredible, controversial, and unbelievable of all supernatural phenomena....that of physical mediumship. While it has seemingly died out in recent years, I think it presents some of the more interesting case studies. Two, in particular, stand out...D.D. Home and Eusapia Palladino. I would recommend studying one of them carefully, as there is a lot of material available on them, some of which is very difficult to find and is expensive. If interested, start with the inexpensive books below, and if there is a continued interest, consult the more expensive sources I provide.

Some inexpensive books:

Incidents in My Life - D.D. Home

Written by the medium (actually dictated), which is usually grounds for extreme caution. However, it mainly consists of testimony from sitters which was published in other sources which are difficult to access. Time-Life republished it, and it should be obtainable for about $10.

Sittings With Eusapia Palladino and Other Studies - Everard Feilding

The work of the S.P.R. investigator Everard Feilding, with the main bulk of the book being a reprint of his 11 sittings with Eusapia Palladino (along with investigators W.W. Baggally, and Hereward Carrington). These 11 sittings were stenographically recorded and are of interest. Should be obtainable for a reasonable price.

Very Peculiar People - E.J. Dingwall

Not as inexpensive as the two previous, but contains a useful chapter summarizing the research done with Palladino.

Expensive:

Eusapia Palladino and Her Phenomena - Hereward Carrington
The co-investigator with Feilding. The book contains a useful summary of the studies done with Palladino, including the author's own.

Experiences in Spiritualism With D.D. Home
Sittings with the medium written up by Lord Adare. Republished in the 70s by Arno Press, but still somewhat pricey if I recall.

Report of the Dialectical Society on Spiritualism
Useful summary of the contemporary Spiritualist scene around 1870. Much testimony and cross-examination regarding D.D. Home is provided. Also reprinted by Arno, but also expensive.

Crookes and the Spirit World - Medhurst/Goldney
Reprinting of Sir William Crookes' experiments with D.D. Home. Highly valuable.

Founders of The Society For Psychical Research Alan Gauld
Very useful summary of early research in the Society, with some unpublished archive material presented. Good summary on the Society and Palladino

[dharlow]

I also mentioned some general references to psychical research. The following I find useful:

The Unknown - Is It Nearer? By John Langdon-Davies and E.J. Dingwall

Psychical Research Today - D.J. West

Both books cover essentially similar material, and both handle them in a critical, but sympathetic viewpoint. Both are paperback, and should be obtainable for less than $10.

A much more recent work, covering more of the experimental side of parapsychology, is:

Introduction To Parapsychology - H.J. Irwin

This is in three editions (1989/1994/1999). I have the 1999 edition and it was not inexpensive. Irwin provides and addresses possible counterexplanations for positive results in parapscychology. The book contains an extensive bibliography. Irwin's own field of research, on belief in the paranormal, is unique in books of this kind.

None of the above books will be found in popular bookstores. I have used Amazon and Barnes and Noble's Used and Out of Print search engines to locate these books. Abebooks.com also will have a good selection of these books, for those who are interested. As I am not a book collector, and do not much care for the condition of the book(as long as it's not coming apart), I often opt for the one available that is most cheaply priced, and I often find that it is in very good condition. These books, at least some of them, should also be available in the parapsychology section of any large university library.

[Clancie]

Hi dharlow. I know you are very well read in this area. Thank you for these recommendations.

I just ordered the first three (about $13 at bn including s/h, if anyone's interested). I notice the Home book was originally published in 1864.

My question....Do you think that so much of the past mediumship research is ignored and/or discredited by contemporary skeptics because they think it is somehow invalidated by being so "old"?

And, if so, what is your feeling about that, having read so many of these studies? For example, aside from the possibility today of audiotaping or videotaping the work of physical mediums, do you feel the "old" research is necessarily (1) invalidated by the passage of time or (2) is necessarily weaker research than that which could be conducted by parapsychologists today? In what way would "time make a difference", if at all, iyo?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Clancie
(snipped)

My question....Do you think that so much of the past mediumship research is ignored and/or discredited by contemporary skeptics because they think it is somehow invalidated by being so "old"?

(snipped)

Clancie, part of it is not so much it's so old, as there is nothing new or verifiable since then. No breakthrough studies, no verifiable and measurable progress since then, nuttin.

[Clancie]

...And, one other quick, related question....

It seems odd to me that so many of the -best- studies were done so very long ago. I would have expected that we could look back to 1864, from the vantage point of 2003, and feel we'd "come a long way"....or at least had greatly added to the store of knowledge and research of mediumship. And yet....that doesn't seem to be the case.

Do you agree that it doesn't? And, if so, do you have any ideas...well, basically, what happened? Why -didn't- the research build and why -don't- we have a lot more knowledge of what physical mediums were (and are) doing than we did in, say, 1900?

Personally, I don't think it can -only-be due to a shortage of very visible physical mediums, but then....what else?



edited to make it clear the question is not only about physical mediumship then...but -also- since, and now...

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Clancie
...And, one other quick, related question....

It seems odd to me that so many of the -best- studies were done so very long ago. I would have expected that we could look back to 1864, from the vantage point of 2003, and feel we'd "come a long way"....or at least had greatly added to the store of knowledge and research of mediumship. And yet....that doesn't seem to be the case.

Do you agree that it doesn't? And, if so, do you have any ideas...well, basically, what happened? Why -didn't- the research build and why -don't- we have a lot more knowledge of what these people were doing than we did in, say, 1900?

Personally, I don't think it can -only-be due to a shortage of very visible physical mediums, but then....what else?

Or, Clancie, it's because it doesn't exist in the first place.

[Clancie]

Posted by Suezoled

Or, Clancie, it's because it doesn't exist in the first place.
Suezoled, I think you're missing the point of my question. It's about the quality and quantity of existing research itself, not what it shows. (And, of the credible research that -has- been done, from Home onward, none of it that I can see completely lays the questions about "what is happening here?" to rest....Not one way or the other.....)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Clancie

Suezoled, I think you're missing the point of my question. It's about the quality and quantity of existing research itself, not what it shows. (And, of the credible research that -has- been done, from Home onward, none of it that I can see completely lays the questions about "what is happening here?" to rest....Not one way or the other.....)

No, you said this:
My question....Do you think that so much of the past mediumship research is ignored and/or discredited by contemporary skeptics because they think it is somehow invalidated by being so "old"?
and then you said this:

It seems odd to me that so many of the -best- studies were done so very long ago. I would have expected that we could look back to 1864, from the vantage point of 2003, and feel we'd "come a long way"....or at least had greatly added to the store of knowledge and research of mediumship. And yet....that doesn't seem to be the case.

With the advent of technology, including methodology, communication, and the flow of ideas, the indication for psychic phenomena is so low in this day and age is.... brace yourself.... there is less reason to believe it exists.

[Suezoled]

...ah, but Clancie will have reason, regardless...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

Suezoled, I think you're missing the point of my question. It's about the quality and quantity of existing research itself, not what it shows. (And, of the credible research that -has- been done, from Home onward, none of it that I can see completely lays the questions about "what is happening here?" to rest....Not one way or the other.....)

If a field of research, after a considerable amount of time failed to produce consistent "positive" results then you would expect research to slowly die away, because there is nothing to research.

[Suezoled]

ah, but Darat, you know Clancie believes, and will continue to find positive results because she believes. She will keep looking, because she believes. And believe and believe....

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
...And, one other quick, related question....

It seems odd to me that so many of the -best- studies were done so very long ago. I would have expected that we could look back to 1864, from the vantage point of 2003, and feel we'd "come a long way"....or at least had greatly added to the store of knowledge and research of mediumship. And yet....that doesn't seem to be the case.

Do you agree that it doesn't? And, if so, do you have any ideas...well, basically, what happened? Why -didn't- the research build and why -don't- we have a lot more knowledge of what these people were doing than we did in, say, 1900?

Personally, I don't think it can -only-be due to a shortage of very visible physical mediums, but then....what else?
I see two questions in here. One is why have we not accumlated more knowledge and research on the apparent level of these older mediums, and also, why have we not furthered our understanding of what it was these older mediums were doing. To the first many would argue, Steve among them that there is indeed a massive wealth of new and recent research and studies showing quality paranormal phenomena. However, it appears that almost all of these are mired in debate over their legitimacy and accuracy. We don't seem to have these clear cut disprovable cases like we did around the turn of the century, and I think its a decent arguement that a big part for that is that we are much more skepitcal, and precise in our questioning of what it is these people are doing, and how. As scrutiny has grown more scientific, the number of available mediums that do things that simply confound us has seemingly decreased. Its grown more vague, and answers are now searched for by means of meta-analysis and other such things. To your second arguement I think it in large part is because they only had written accounts, and on occasion photographs of what these people did. Its impossible for us to say what might have been tampered with, or what might have been embellished, or even if you think its true, what positive things may have been glazed over. We still only have the same amount of info on these mediums as we did before, and I believe there is only so much we can do with that information. I think if they were here now, or could be tested today, then perhaps some of these questions could be answered. Time does not in itself invalidate the data, although there are certainly things we know today that they did not back then, but it does make it harder to validate period, it makes it vunerable to misinterpretation and other such things without the possibility of double-checking with the original parties (tester and testee) for clarity. So we must take it with a grain of salt to make sure we're not reading in things that are not actually there.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Clancie, part of it is not so much it's so old, as there is nothing new or verifiable since then. No breakthrough studies, no verifiable and measurable progress since then, nuttin.

Well hello Suezoled. You certainly seem knowledgeable. But where did you obtain your information? References please.

BTW just saw your photo in the picture thread today. lol

[geni]

Originally posted by Clancie
...And, one other quick, related question....

It seems odd to me that so many of the -best- studies were done so very long ago. I would have expected that we could look back to 1864, from the vantage point of 2003, and feel we'd "come a long way"....or at least had greatly added to the store of knowledge and research of mediumship. And yet....that doesn't seem to be the case.

Do you agree that it doesn't? And, if so, do you have any ideas...well, basically, what happened? Why -didn't- the research build and why -don't- we have a lot more knowledge of what these people were doing than we did in, say, 1900?

Personally, I don't think it can -only-be due to a shortage of very visible physical mediums, but then....what else?

Since it has become less popular science has become less interested. By contrast alturnative treatments are becomeing more popular so science is looking into them (and mostly getting negative results). If the whole mediumship thing becomes more popular I sure the amount of resurch into it will increase (I don't think it likely that any posertive results would be produced though). As an aside SteveGrenard said there would be some interesting resurch comeing out early in the new year so perhaps we shall see then.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
We don't seem to have these clear cut disprovable cases like we did around the turn of the century, and I think its a decent arguement that a big part for that is that we are much more skepitcal, and precise in our questioning of what it is these people are doing, and how.


People are more skeptical now? Hmmmm. And our questions are more precise? Hmmmmm. Well thank you for informing me of this. Er . . . is it possible you could provide some corroboration of your assertions?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Darat


If a field of research, after a considerable amount of time failed to produce consistent "positive" results then you would expect research to slowly die away, because there is nothing to research.
Or the research beings to start making assumtions, or starts looking for data to support its conclusions, hense so many people attempting to try really hard to correlate paranormal instances by meta-analyzing large scores of data.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
As scrutiny has grown more scientific, the number of available mediums that do things that simply confound us has seemingly decreased.


In what way has it become more scientific? Or to put it another way, in what way were the early investigators failing to be scientific?

Please understand I am not disagreeing with you. I genuinely don't know and would be interested in your answer.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


People are more skeptical now? Hmmmm. And our questions are more precise? Hmmmmm. Well thank you for informing me of this. Er . . . is it possible you could provide some corroboration of your assertions?
Do you deny that we have perhaps a better grasp of techniques such as cold-reading and the like, that our understanding of statistics today does a better job of reducing many of these things to chance, than in days past? I should rephrase that people are not necessarily more skeptical now, but rather have better tools with which to support their skepticism. For example we have the advantage these days to point at years worth of studies now that are somewhat scientific, that still fail to provide any consistent evidence of paranormal phenomena, something skeptics of old did not have.

Besides, weren't you too busy to answer my inane and stupid posts because you were making a web page? :D

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


In what way has it become more scientific? Or to put it another way, in what way were the early investigators failing to be scientific?

Please understand I am not disagreeing with you. I genuinely don't know and would be interested in your answer.
Ok. I kind of see it happening this way. I'm not saying the first investigators were unscientific, but it was the level of scientific knowledge and testing procedures that they had available to them, and with those, they couldn't seem to show any consistent result, or if they did, they couldn't seemingly explain how. You'd agree that the scientific research involved in investigating paranormal claims has tried many different methods since, as people truly seem to be searching for a method that could show any extremely convincing results conveying a likely existence of paranormal phenomena. It has also grown far more complex in its methodology, in an attempt to make any sense of the data when they consider it significant (what consistitutes significant, often being a case of heated debate). So we have become more complex in our testing methodologies from the turn of the century, I'm just of the opinion that we're in danger of looking for something we want to believe in, within data that so far still seems to not show any clear indication that this something exists.

For example if you read many of Steve's links, regardless of your opinion of the content, many of them are trying to use new technology to corroborate paranormal phenomena, like EEG or scans or whatever it is. I'll admit to not being well versed in this material. It just feels that its a pretty fine line between using new methods to prove an observable phenomena, and picking and choosing methods that if scrutinized on a large enough level with enough meta-analysis, might start to conform falsely to the answer we're looking for.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Clancie

My question....Do you think that so much of the past mediumship research is ignored and/or discredited by contemporary skeptics because they think it is somehow invalidated by being so "old"?

And, if so, what is your feeling about that, having read so many of these studies? For example, aside from the possibility today of audiotaping or videotaping the work of physical mediums, do you feel the "old" research is necessarily (1) invalidated by the passage of time or (2) is necessarily weaker research than that which could be conducted by parapsychologists today? In what way would "time make a difference", if at all, iyo?

Any research that is not subsequently validated must ultimately be regarded with skepticism. This is only natural. The situation with mediumship presents a difficult situation, for we are dealing with specific individuals claiming to contain unknown, unrecognized abilities. Once that individual dies, no follow-up research on that individual can be done, but in theory the phenomena can still be validated, presuming it is exhibited in other individuals. Up until the 1930s several notable physical mediums were tested rigorously, but by no means was the phenomena accepted in the scientific community. This brings up the old question of the bundle of sticks, in which one must ask whether the validation of several mediums serves to validate the phenomena, or whether each medium and the respective research done with them be treated on an individual basis. I incline to the latter view, but others might disagree.

Most contemporary skeptics (or parapsychologists for that matter) are intimately familiar with the two individuals I've listed. The ones who are almost completely derive their information from second-hand critical books written nearer to the time in question. Unfortunately, these books contain numerous errors, and display a rather obvious bias, and these errors often make their way into contemporary writings. As far as the material being "old", that certainly has something to do with it. "Old" material is often not of easy access, and can be expensive and time-consuming to obtain. I, myself, when I became interested in the subject, had absolutely no interest in reading 100 year old studies. However, I happened to peruse some summaries, and a domino effect ensued in which I tracked down reference after reference. Dingwall's books are especially valuable in this regard, containing extensive bibliographies.

In answer to your other question....no, nothing much has been added to mediumship research in recent years. I am interested in reading Roy's work with mental mediums, but mental mediumship interests me less than physical mediumship. As to why no progress has been made, I can think of many possible reasons...the phenomena do not exist, and the frauds who practiced it then do not do so now...scientists have turned their back on it, even those inclined to believe in the paranormal...the phenomena existed once in great power, but has now declined, at least in Western civilization...the mediums themselves no longer submit to scientific investigation. In reference to this last point, I urge you to go to survivalafterdeath.org, check out the latest news. An urge for inquiry into the Noah's Ark Society was recently turned down for the society, as they apparently had no interest in submitting themselves. Whatever might be said about the two mediums I listed, they seemed to welcome skeptical inquiry. This is no longer the case.

I must urge that in presenting this material, it is not a defense of a supernatural interpretation. Rather, I regard these figures and the work on them as historical mysteries which have never been solved. There are good grounds for not accepting them as "proving" anything, but ignoring them does not make a number of puzzles go away. Whether one finds them convincing or not is a personal decision, and I don't think one need to approach them that way. I think anyone interested in conjuring or conjuring history would find these subjects quite fascinating, and anyone who enjoys perplexing puzzles and their possible solutions will find them equally so.

[Clancie]

Voidx,

You pretty well stated -exactly- what I think is the position of many current skeptics (at least at this board, maybe widespread as well). I really am curious about what dharlow (Mike D, too, if he's around) thinks about these points as they are, imo, far and away the most knowledgable about mediumship research and I don't remember anyone addressing these questions before.

re: recent research.....
Posted by voidx

...many would argue, Steve among them, that there is indeed a massive wealth of new and recent research and studies showing quality paranormal phenomena.

I think Steve's posts about experiments (not about his own experience with Mrs. Walsh) were about mental, not physical, mediums.
Posted by voidx
However, it appears that almost all of these are mired in debate over their legitimacy and accuracy. We don't seem to have these clear cut disprovable cases** like we did around the turn of the century,

...I think its a decent argument that a big part for that is that we are much more skepitcal, and precise in our questioning of what it is these people are doing, and how.
I question if the long ago research of SPR really bears that claim out.
Posted by voidx

As scrutiny has grown more scientific, the number of available mediums that do things that simply confound us has seemingly decreased.

Its grown more vague, and answers are now searched for by means of meta-analysis and other such things.
Like....????

________

Footnote question to post above: **What -are- the "clear cut disprovable cases" of physical mediumship that you have in mind, voidx? Like Ian, I'm not arguing with you, I'm curious because I really am not familiar with these studies....

[voidx]

Just a side-note too Ian. I would say that if people truly do believe in say telepathy, ESP, ADC and the like, to be consistent it would make more sense if they bought into an idealist worldview such as yours. Paranormal phenomena would seem to make more sense and operate easier in your worldview than in a purely material one. I just don't think materialist science makes many of these phenoma possible or at least the likelihood of them very possible. And if it is truly immaterial, then materialist science wouldn't really have a very objective way of measuring it at all which I think you'd agree with. I would argue that for many paranormal phenomena to make sense at all, you'd have to advocate an immaterial element to the universe, dualist at the very least. Its another reason again why I find them unlikely as I do not espouse either of those views currently :D. And why I think its will likely be a continued fruitless exercise to try and show these phenomena through the method of science, it just doesn't seem to support them.

[Clancie]

Posted by dharlow

There are good grounds for not accepting them as "proving" anything, but ignoring them does not make a number of puzzles go away. Whether one finds them convincing or not is a personal decision
I agree with you. I don't think most skeptics here do, though. I may be wrong, but I think it is much more viewed as "an open and shut case, it doesn't happen, end of statement"....as Suezoled expressed above.
Posted by dharlow

Any research that is not subsequently validated must ultimately be regarded with skepticism.
Agreed. But what do you mean by the word "validated" when it comes to research into physical mediumship?
Posted by dharlow

...mediumship presents a difficult situation, for we are dealing with specific individuals claiming to contain unknown, unrecognized abilities. Once that individual dies, no follow-up research on that individual can be done, but in theory the phenomena can still be validated, presuming it is exhibited in other individuals.
That is a key point, isn't it. We can't be sure if a particular medium had the ability or not once s/he has died, but we can still (hypothetically) "validate" if the ability is real (if it is). But...can it ever, really, be validated? What would it, realistically, take?

Up until the 1930s several notable physical mediums were tested rigorously, but by no means was the phenomena accepted in the scientific community.
Are you thinking of Palladino? Piper? Someone else? Offhand, I don't remember their dates.

This brings up the old question of the bundle of sticks, in which one must ask whether the validation of several mediums serves to validate the phenomena, or whether each medium and the respective research done with them be treated on an individual basis. I incline to the latter view, but others might disagree.

Isn't this a bit like the White Crow idea? I think the main issue is can we ascertain that -anyone- can do it. If so, the phenomena is validated and then we could -weigh- the likelihood for ourselves of whether people in the past were or weren't -really- demonstrating it.

But....how is this particular phenomena -ever- going to be convincingly validated? What has been missing from research so far...that ADC hasn't been either (1) totally discredited or (2) validated by the research?
Posted by dharlow

Most contemporary skeptics (or parapsychologists for that matter) are intimately familiar with the two individuals I've listed.
You have in mind different skeptics than the way the term is used here at JREF, I think. I've never seen anyone here other than you and Mike show any familiarity with Home or Palladino at all....
Posted by dharlow

"Old" material is often not of easy access, and can be expensive and time-consuming to obtain.
Actually, that's not what I meant. I think there is a tendency for people to discount "old" research as being more biased....less "scientific"...less rigorous, etc. I don't think the researchers of Home's time are accorded the same respect that someone of today would be by many here, and I think this makes their results suspect, to many, from the get-go....
Posted by dharlow

As to why no progress has been made, I can think of many possible reasons...the phenomena do not exist, and the frauds who practiced it then do not do so now...
Possibly, and yet....why not study them, if only to show...."nothing to it whatsoever"? I agree with Randi/Shermer that most of these people are self-deluded (i.e. would not be afraid to be tested because they do not -think- they are frauds, even if, in reality, they have no paranormal ability at all).
Posted by dharlow
....(another possibility...) scientists have turned their back on it, even those inclined to believe in the paranormal...
Well, there's always the money problem....
Posted by dharlow
...the phenomena existed once in great power, but has now declined, at least in Western civilization...
This is an interesting idea, but I guess there's really no documentation of it....

I must urge that in presenting this material, it is not a defense of a supernatural interpretation. Rather, I regard these figures and the work on them as historical mysteries which have never been solved.
I know you are not a "believer" in any way, and that your purpose seems clear enough, dharlow. But to be perfectly frank, I feel there is little acknowledgment at this board of "the mystery" of any of it and I'll be surprised if your references change that for most, if any....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx

Ok. I kind of see it happening this way. I'm not saying the first investigators were unscientific, but it was the level of scientific knowledge and testing procedures that they had available to them, and with those, they couldn't seem to show any consistent result, or if they did, they couldn't seemingly explain how. You'd agree that the scientific research involved in investigating paranormal claims has tried many different methods since, as people truly seem to be searching for a method that could show any extremely convincing results conveying a likely existence of paranormal phenomena. It has also grown far more complex in its methodology, in an attempt to make any sense of the data when they consider it significant (what consistitutes significant, often being a case of heated debate). So we have become more complex in our testing methodologies from the turn of the century, I'm just of the opinion that we're in danger of looking for something we want to believe in, within data that so far still seems to not show any clear indication that this something exists.

For example if you read many of Steve's links, regardless of your opinion of the content, many of them are trying to use new technology to corroborate paranormal phenomena, like EEG or scans or whatever it is. I'll admit to not being well versed in this material. It just feels that its a pretty fine line between using new methods to prove an observable phenomena, and picking and choosing methods that if scrutinized on a large enough level with enough meta-analysis, might start to conform falsely to the answer we're looking for.

Are you talking about mediums or are you talking about the alleged phenomena studied by parapsychologists? I thought we were originally talking about mediums, but above you seem to be talking about that paranormal phenomena studied by parapsychologists. From what I know of mediums we do not get the mediums exhibiting the type of apparent phenomena and abilities that we used to. The explanation which you obviously favour were that they were all charlatans. I really have no idea how plausible this hypothesis is having read very little indeed of the evidence. Are you quite knowledgeable?

As regards those paranormal phenomena studied by parapsychologists, that only started in the late 1920's early 1930's didn't it? Although the experimental protocols were never particularly lacking, they have continued to be tightened in response to criticisms by skeptics in order to eliminate any possible artifacts that could be skewing the results. From what I have read ,the statistical significance of the results are still more or less the same now than it has ever been. This in spite of the constant striving to eliminate any possible artifacts skewing the results. This then seems to give some suggestion that there is a genuine effect here. And that's before you start considering all the anecdotal evidence!

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Voidx,

You pretty well stated -exactly- what I think is the position of many current skeptics (at least at this board, maybe widespread as well). I really am curious about what dharlow (Mike D, too, if he's around) thinks about these points as they are, imo, far and away the most knowledgable about mediumship research and I don't remember anyone addressing these questions before.

re: recent research.....

I think Steve's posts about experiments (not about his own experience with Mrs. Walsh) were about mental, not physical, mediums.

I'll admit first off that I missed the initial caveat that we were concentrating solely on physical mediums here. The ones I know about are Florence Cooke, Helen Duncan some others. I've read some about William James and the conversations he had with his skeptical counterpart John Chapman (or was it Huxley?). I admit my reading on physical mediumship is much more limited, but go to www.survivalafterdeath.org and they list several examples as concrete evidence for physical mediumship.

I think dharlow did a better job of summarizing what my own position would be in his last post.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
Just a side-note too Ian. I would say that if people truly do believe in say telepathy, ESP, ADC and the like, to be consistent it would make more sense if they bought into an idealist worldview such as yours. Paranormal phenomena would seem to make more sense and operate easier in your worldview than in a purely material one. I just don't think materialist science makes many of these phenoma possible or at least the likelihood of them very possible. And if it is truly immaterial, then materialist science wouldn't really have a very objective way of measuring it at all which I think you'd agree with. I would argue that for many paranormal phenomena to make sense at all, you'd have to advocate an immaterial element to the universe, dualist at the very least. Its another reason again why I find them unlikely as I do not espouse either of those views currently :D. And why I think its will likely be a continued fruitless exercise to try and show these phenomena through the method of science, it just doesn't seem to support them.

There's no such thing as materialist science. The notion that science somehow implies materialism (ie reality is wholly material including consciousness) is a myth. But if materialism is correct it is certainly difficult to see how it could accommodate paranormal phenomena. There again I should point out that materialism is continually changing in the light of new scientific theories. For example the mechanistic philosophy (everything in the world changes according to a push or pull) has long been discredited. Ummmm . .otherwise we would have none of our modern technology! :D And just consider non-local effects in Quantum Mechanics! If measuring a particular property of some elementary particle can instantly determine that same property of its twin, maybe on the other side of the Universe, then it's not entirely clear why something like telepathy is all that more surprising.

I agree though that idealism lends itself best to such phenomena, and dualism to a large extent as well.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are you talking about mediums or are you talking about the alleged phenomena studied by parapsychologists? I thought we were originally talking about mediums, but above you seem to be talking about that paranormal phenomena studied by parapsychologists. From what I know of mediums we do not get the mediums exhibiting the type of apparent phenomena and abilities that we used to. The explanation which you obviously favour were that they were all charlatans. I really have no idea how plausible this hypothesis is having read very little indeed of the evidence. Are you quite knowledgeable?

As regards those paranormal phenomena studied by parapsychologists, that only started in the late 1920's early 1930's didn't it? Although the experimental protocols were never particularly lacking, they have continued to be tightened in response to criticisms by skeptics in order to eliminate any possible artifacts that could be skewing the results. From what I have read ,the statistical significance of the results are still more or less the same now than it has ever been. This in spite of the constant striving to eliminate any possible artifacts skewing the results. This then seems to give some suggestion that there is a genuine effect here. And that's before you start considering all the anecdotal evidence!
I may have drifted off in general about paranormal phenomena in general. But even physical mediums as are being discussed here consider the material manifestations they produce as coming from the spiritual (I assume they think immaterial) world. I wouldn't come right out and state they are charlatans, I merely don't agree that its likely what they do is paranormal, and many of them probably think what they do is real, or in my opinion fool themselves into thinking it is real. I merely think that since so much time has passed since these last tests, that studying them do could only give limited, if any understanding to the phenomena claimed. And no, as physical mediumship goes, I'm not that knowledgeable, I'd done some reading on it in the past, but really don't recall very much of what I read, which wasn't much in the first place.

As for your second paragraph I agree completely, except that we differ on the conclusion. The results don't seem to support paranormal activities over mundane ones, we're not even sure what it is that's happeneing when it does happen, so how can we assume one way or the other what it is. Their significance would seem to be rather low, or at least not significantly better than chance, and that has not changed. You're second paragraph kind of summed up what I was trying to get at before, but when I look at all the research, I do not see that it is a convincing arguement for the paranormal, where I think you lean more towards the conclusion that it is.

For the record I think you could more easily argue mental mediumship (on account of how subjective it is) than physical. Look at any of those old pictures of physical manifestations, their hilarious, and could easily be doctored photo's, or just normal physical tricks. If a snotty sheet shooting out your nostril is the best way the spirit world can think of too communicate with us, heh well then I'd rather not converse with them at all :D.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

You have in mind different skeptics than the way the term is used here at JREF, I think. I've never seen anyone here other than you and Mike show any familiarity with Home or Palladino at all....

[/B]

CFLarsen is apparently familiar with Home. He said he's been debunked! :D

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by voidx

...I think its a decent arguement that a big part for that is that we are much more skepitcal, and precise in our questioning of what it is these people are doing, and how.

voidx,

From what I've read, this is hardly the case. There were people involved in investigating mediums around the turn of the century who were as skeptical as the most fervent skeptic today. Richard Hodgson is a good example. He was known as an extreme skeptic and expert in fradulent practices of mediums and he had a reputation for mercilessly exposing fraudulent mediums. He was meticulous in setting up controls to thwart fraud on the part of mediums, and some of these controls were more extreme than most investigators would probably employ today.

Mike

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Clancie



Agreed. But what do you mean by the word "validated" when it comes to research into physical mediumship?


Validated in the sense that the investigators concluded in favor of the paranormal explanation. This does not mean the phenomena has been concretely validated.

Originally posted by Clancie

That is a key point, isn't it. We can't be sure if a particular medium had the ability or not once s/he has died, but we can still (hypothetically) "validate" if the ability is real (if it is). But...can it ever, really, be validated? What would it, realistically, take?


Well, the ability to videotape phenomena nowadays would help to reduce retrospective criticism in the future, since examiners could "see" what we are seeing today. This is obviously not the case for past physical mediumship studies. We cannot see the heavy furniture glide along the floor, or the whole room shake as if an earthquake was occurring, or the floating of Home around the room for minutes on end. We cannot see the mysterious hands and heads that protruded from behind the curtain at Palladino's seances (although there are a number of table levitation photographs, some of which are interesting). This could change if a physical medium came along who resembled Home or Palladino, but I doubt this will be happening anytime soon, if ever.

Originally posted by Clancie

Are you thinking of Palladino? Piper? Someone else? Offhand, I don't remember their dates.

There have been a large number of physical mediums who have had positive research done with them...Rudi and Willi Schneider, Eva C(Martha Berarde), the Goliger circle, Ms. Blake, etc...The Schneider brothers were the last to produce consistent positive results in controlled conditions (1930s).

Originally posted by Clancie


But....how is this particular phenomena -ever- going to be convincingly validated? What has been missing from research so far...that ADC hasn't been either (1) totally discredited or (2) validated by the research?


See response above. Also, do not take the view of ADC versus non-paranormal interpretation. Too many people here and elsewhere do this, especially with regard to ghosts/mediumship. There are other theories as to the phenomena (like PK, hallucination, etc...). Don't get wrapped up in the question of spirits, especially with the physical phenomena.
Originally posted by Clancie

You have in mind different skeptics than the way the term is used here at JREF, I think. I've never seen anyone here other than you and Mike show any familiarity with Home or Palladino at all....

I meant "not intimately familiar". Sorry.

Originally posted by Clancie

Actually, that's not what I meant. I think there is a tendency for people to discount "old" research as being more biased....less "scientific"...less rigorous, etc. I don't think the researchers of Home's time are accorded the same respect that someone of today would be by many here, and I think this makes their results suspect, to many, from the get-go....

I'm sympathetic to that view, since I once held it. However, there have always been the credulous and the skeptics. Whether the ratio to this has changed in the past 100 years is somewhat debateable (we have no concrete evidence to say that it has). If you believe CSICOP, people are growing ever more credulous, but I would not agree with this. Spiritualism was not viewed well by the vast majority in the 19th century, as can be seen in the media of the time as well as the writings of some. Some believers in Spiritualism and physical phenomena in particular display a critical attitude at times, while others do not. In general, the work produced in the SPR was good, and some of the SPR leaders were distinctly prejudiced against the physical phenomena.
Both Home and Palladino had their share of both critical and credulous sitters. It is important to note, though, that they did not exclude the critical minded from sitting with them, as many did and still do.

Originally posted by Clancie

This is an interesting idea, but I guess there's really no documentation of it....

Well, I think it's pretty clear that there are no Homes or Palladinos currently (i.e. a medium who works in light and invites investigation). If there were, the media would quickly get a hold of them and they would be widely known, as those two were in their day.

Originally posted by Clancie

I know you are not a "believer" in any way, and that your purpose seems clear enough, dharlow. But to be perfectly frank, I feel there is little acknowledgment at this board of "the mystery" of any of it and I'll be surprised if your references change that for most, if any....

I wouldn't necessarily say that. There are clearly all types on this forum. Some are disbelievers, some are former believers who saw their beliefs debunked and concluded it was all nonsense, some are merely curious and looking for any real evidence, etc... I post these references as a guide to some interesting past people in whose presence the most marvelous phenomena was reported.

One must understand that the physical phenomena of mediumship is vastly different from the mental. From a conjuring standpoint, the ultimate goal is to prevent your audience from detecting your trick. With mental mediumship, this is fairly easy, because the trickery is difficult to concretely prove (ie cold reading), or because one can obtain information on sitters in advance and have relatively little risk to exposure. Physical mediumship is different, because the tricks are taking place underneath the eye of the audience. This carries a major risk, and it was in the best interest of fraudulent mediums to reduce this risk by conducting sittings in the dark (which allows endless possible methods of trickery not available in the light), and to confine sittings only to fervent believers in Spiritualism. Home and Palladino are different. Their sittings were held in light, and they willingly sat with all types of observers. They also, and this is important, repeatedly violated two of the most fundamental principles of conjuring....don't repeat your trick to the same audience (unless using a different method each time), and don't let your audience know what it is you are about to do.

*Note: While I have addresses only Clancie in this thread, I think some of my responses answer some questions or points put forward by other posters in this thread.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Clancie

I agree with you. I don't think most skeptics here do, though. I may be wrong, but I think it is much more viewed as "an open and shut case, it doesn't happen, end of statement"....as Suezoled expressed above.

(snipped)
Oh no Clancie. :)
If I am wrong I am wrong. And it is not the way you stated it.
1.) Hypothesis: psychic phenomena may or may not exist
2.) Research: trials and studies looked up, from the set up to the witnesses, from the claims made to the end of the experiment.
3.) Conclusion: in all the years of research, studies, reports, etc, in comparison to anecdotes and auto-biographies, there is no conclusive evidence psychic phenomena exists
4.) apply Occam's Razor
5.) conclusion: psychic phenomena does not exist (note: this does not mean "end of statment," I am still willing to be proven wrong, but there had better be hard evidence for it. As far I see, there has not been. And so I state my conclusion again: psychi phemonena does not exist.)

Yes, on one hand studies to show the phenomena exists need to be done to prove it does. On the other hand, how long does a subject "need" to be studied before it's laid to rest?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Oh no Clancie. :)
If I am wrong I am wrong. And it is not the way you stated it.
1.) Hypothesis: psychic phenomena may or may not exist
2.) Research: trials and studies looked up, from the set up to the witnesses, from the claims made to the end of the experiment.
3.) Conclusion: in all the years of research, studies, reports, etc, in comparison to anecdotes and auto-biographies, there is no conclusive evidence psychic phenomena exists
4.) apply Occam's Razor
5.) conclusion: psychic phenomena does not exist (note: this does not mean "end of statment," I am still willing to be proven wrong, but there had better be hard evidence for it. As far I see, there has not been. And so I state my conclusion again: psychi phemonena does not exist.)

Yes, on one hand studies to show the phenomena exists need to be done to prove it does. On the other hand, how long does a subject "need" to be studied before it's laid to rest?

I don't understand this. First of all what does "conclusive evidence" and "hard evidence" mean? Do you perhaps mean "conclusive proof"? If so why is it likely that no paranormal phenomena exists if one cannot obtain indisputable proof?? I just cannot for the life of me understand this "logic" at all. Yet your sentiment seems to be expressed by most "skeptics".

We have the research which slows a weak but statistically significant effect. It has not diminished as a consequence of tighter experimental protocols. Maybe there is still some unknown sensory leakage. But why presume there is?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Mike D.


voidx,

From what I've read, this is hardly the case. There were people involved in investigating mediums around the turn of the century who were as skeptical as the most fervent skeptic today. Richard Hodgson is a good example. He was known as an extreme skeptic and expert in fradulent practices of mediums and he had a reputation for mercilessly exposing fraudulent mediums. He was meticulous in setting up controls to thwart fraud on the part of mediums, and some of these controls were more extreme than most investigators would probably employ today.

Mike
See my revised note to Ian above. I did not mean to imply that we are more skeptical nowadays, but that perhaps the tools, should we choose to use them, available to us today would allow us to remove even more variables from our testing of mediums. A skeptic is a skeptic, its only the tools available the differentiate us. As dharlow mentions, video photage for one is an example. While we must be aware of the trickery possible through use of video, its possible for these experiences in some form to be shared visibly with a wide audience. It certainly sounds from some accounts that experiencing these phsycial mediums of days past would have been quite intriging, and video photage of their performances and demonstrations would be viewed perhaps with great interest today. They might also be quickly dismissed as well. We simply have no guage except written accounts for how incredible these performances were. And after seeing how people can come away from a live performance with greatly varying opinions of what happened (such as the JE seminar attended by Instg8tor, Neo, and yourself I believe) I simply refuse to invest much stock in these accounts. Not because I straight off believe they are bunk, but moreso because we cannot know for sure one way or the other. So while it makes it interesting to be familiar with, I'm not sure how productive it might ever be. As mentioned there are no physical mediums today of such skill, or rather none that are willing to display their talents outside of their own set environment. I simply find it telling that when pressed hard, many people that believe in mediumship, physical and mental, usually have to refer to these mediums that we no longer have access to as the most incredible in their field. They might have been, but we'll never know, and thats overly convinient I think.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well hello Suezoled. You certainly seem knowledgeable. But where did you obtain your information? References please.

BTW just saw your photo in the picture thread today. lol

Okay, I know it's waay late, and it's my own fault of scrolling by Ian's posts without reading them. I caught this today.

First part: References have been lobbed at you from every point and very few seem to fit with your immaterialist philosophy, so you reject them.

Two: so you saw my pic on the pic thread (it's number 45). What's so "lol"? (Making an assumption: yes Ian, I know I'm not beautiful. I never has ambitions to be a supermodel.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Well hello Suezoled. You certainly seem knowledgeable. But where did you obtain your information? References please.

BTW just saw your photo in the picture thread today. lol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, I know it's waay late, and it's my own fault of scrolling by Ian's posts without reading them.



May I ask why you are doing this? What is the problem you have with me?


I caught this today.

First part: References have been lobbed at you from every point and very few seem to fit with your immaterialist philosophy, so you reject them.


I am not aware of scarcely any references that have been pointed out to me. Can you give any examples? I'd be delighted to read any stuff which challenges my beliefs. So long as the references are objective, balanced and fair. Please give me some examples of such references which have been pointed out to me.



Two: so you saw my pic on the pic thread (it's number 45). What's so "lol"? (Making an assumption: yes Ian, I know I'm not beautiful. I never has ambitions to be a supermodel.)



I made no comment on your beauty. Your beauty is of little interest to me. The comment I made in that particular context is the way English people greet each other to express friendship and to initiate conversation.

[Loki]

Ian,

I'd be delighted to read any stuff which challenges my beliefs.
So you've decided to try reading some Dennett???

So long as the references are objective, balanced and fair.
Oh...well, I guess that answers that! "Objective, balanced and fair" is Ian-speak for "supports the conclusion I have held since I was 4 years old" isn't it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
[B]Ian,


So you've decided to try reading some Dennett???



Er . .well . .Ummmm




Oh...well, I guess that answers that! "Objective, balanced and fair" is Ian-speak for "supports the conclusion I have held since I was 4 years old" isn't it?

Very amusing Loki. :)

BTW, you're very interested in the free will debate aren't you? We're currently discussing over in R&P the implications for free will and determinism that Newcomb's paradox has. Everyone is arguing against me! :eek: Care to join? :) A miracle might happen and you might agree with me against all the rest! :eek: Nah, not likely :)

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32961&perpage=40&pagenumber=1