Cold Reading Demos at TAM2 [Archive]

CFLarsen

21st January 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
A lot can happen in an hour and a half--which is why I'm curious to hear what he did and how it went.

Ian did not focus on cold reading. He touched on many subjects, e.g. spoon bending and creating an impossible object out of a newpaper page.

Don't focus on a headline and claim that he failed. You had to be there. You weren't. Your criticism is uninformed and biased. As well as wrong.

Originally posted by Clancie
I know you've had neofight say this as well, but a good cold reading demonstration could go a long way toward discrediting mediums. I've yet to see cold readers give an evidential mediumship reading, but if one could, imo, it would definitely be a great educational tool for skeptics in arguing against this.

You have yet to admit that you have seen cold readers give readings that were comparable to what JE does.

There is a difference between seeing something and admitting that you see it.

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree. But he was bolder in the cold reading/mediumship demo at Cal Tech and it didn't work out.

Very disingenious of you. You know damn well that the audience has to believe that the performer can actually talk to dead people, before the trick works.

You, who claim so great knowledge of cold reading as well as mediumship (you sure seem to chastise others for not knowing as much as you do), should be the first to acknowledge this. Alas, you don't, because if you did, you would be in serious trouble.

Originally posted by Clancie
It sounds like he was working on the premise many here have about JE--that he throws out a guess, gets a "taker", then narrows the reading down to that one person.

The fact that, after that, the process doesn't seem to work the way people here assume it will, doesn't seem to matter! :p

Really? You are saying that JE starts as a cold reader, and then works his way "up" to being a real psychic medium? Why start as a cold reader? Why not just throw out those "special hits" that you consider the best evidence of psychic mediumship?

You still need to answer what the difference between a cold reader and a psychic (as opposed to a psychic medium) is. I seriously doubt that you will ever find the courage to answer.

Ipecac

21st January 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I've yet to see cold readers give an evidential mediumship reading, but if one could, imo, it would definitely be a great educational tool for skeptics in arguing against this.

Clancie, I can help you!

Watch the Sci Fi channel. They have this cold reader on every night. He gives a decent "evidential mediumship reading". If he doesn't convince you that mediumship is fake, nothing will. :)

NoZed Avenger

21st January 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Ersby
Seems that Ian hasn't been bold enough in his attempt to replicate mediumship. This whole "think of a question and I'll guess it" isn't anything like JE's schtick. It's like a left over from an old routine. And throwing out a guess to an entire audience. That's no good at all. Too timid. If you hone in on an area of audience, you'll get their attention and they'll be much more receptive than if you just talk to everyone.

Well, yes and no.

The "think of a question" idea actually limits the cold reading, because many general statements that might fit me, for example, would not fit the "one" question that I had pre-formed.

On the other hand, what Ian did was very similar to JE -- he did go to "areas" within the audience and ask "Who in this section had the question about X"?

I thought that his readings -- only a small part of his lecture/demonstration -- were so-so. A few decent hits, a few expected general ones, a few misses. He was actually demonstrating more about his techniques for turning "misses" into "hits" than straight cold-reading. He did have (IMO) two solid hits in the brief time that he did readings -- by that, I mean items that were not general-type guesses that were accurate. A number of other items would be hits if we were looking over the readings, but were more common and therefore less impressive.

Mr. Rowland, however, was looking a number of disadvantages in his readings that I consider significant:

(1) He was doing a cold-reading demonstration, and was not thought to be a "genuine" medium by the audience.

(2) This was a conference of skeptics, who are more close-mouthed than your typical audience.

(3) Likewise, many persons in the audience are more familiar with cold-reading techniques and are less likely to supply extra information -- I was one of the people read, for example, and I have a fair number of books on the subject -- including Mr. Rowland's.

(4) There was not -- as in the case of television shows, for example -- an opportunity to edit the readings in any way.

N/A

And as far as readings from admitted cold-readers go, I will still place my admittedly amateur, first try reading up against the vast majority of similar-length readings from any psychic medium.

Place it before anyone neutral in a list like ersby's from a few months back -- with no clues regarding whether it is from a professed cold reader or professed medium -- and I will give odds that it is not outed as one of the cold readings 7 times out of 10.

CFLarsen

21st January 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Ipecac
Clancie, I can help you!

Watch the Sci Fi channel. They have this cold reader on every night. He gives a decent "evidential mediumship reading". If he doesn't convince you that mediumship is fake, nothing will. :)

Very true. I have yet to see anyone point out the differences (and not just appeal to personal beliefs) between John Edward and a cold reader.

Anyone.

Any takers? I'd really like to know. I really would. Don't tell me that I am not "really" interested, because I am. My involvement in the skeptic movement should tell anyone that I really, really, really am interested in finding the answer.

Sure, you can dismiss me for not being really interested, but that doesn't really hold water, does it?

voidx

21st January 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, the schedule says

8:30-10:00 Ian Rowland, Cold Reading . A lot can happen in an hour and a half--which is why I'm curious to hear what he did and how it went.

I know you've had neofight say this as well, but a good cold reading demonstration could go a long way toward discrediting mediums. I've yet to see cold readers give an evidential mediumship reading, but if one could, imo, it would definitely be a great educational tool for skeptics in arguing against this.
While I think it would be a handy thing to have in our backpocket to counter "mediumship" examples I don't think its strictly necessary. However if skeptics or mentalists are going to use cold-reading demonstrations as a counter to mediums, they'd best do a bang-up job of it or it just gives the mediumship crowd free ammunition. It would seem to appear that despite the title of the session it was not an in depth demonstration of cold-reading which is what I suspected after reading the initial response to your question. Me being me I'll reserve all judgements until there's a transcript, or in this case even better, a DVD for TAM2 with the session included.

NoZed as usual makes many good points in his post regarding this and I basically agree, I've in my opinion seen transcripts of people doing cold-reading that are quite comparable in many senses to what JE does, especially if you take his LKL readings into account. I think if a cold-reader spent the necessary time to polish up a solid cold-reading act and added a schtick and gloss to it, that a cold-reader could very much do exactly what JE does. There's been many examples where different cold-reading samples show hints of many different tactics used by JE, if someone could just roll them all together and practice them up, I think we could have a JE clone without that much trouble.

Lucianarchy

21st January 2004, 02:07 PM

CFLarsen

21st January 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Easy.

John will, and a cold reader won't, get tested under the same conditions, controls and protocols of the University of Arizona's (Gary Schwartz's) research department.

Really?

Which cold reader has turned Schwartz down?

Can you point out why Schwartz' experiments were scientifically solid?

Please answer the questions. Don't obfuscate, don't divert, don't stall. Just answer the questions.

Clancie

21st January 2004, 02:24 PM

NZA,

We disagree about the "reasons" there's no good cold reading demo. I don't see any reason why an honest audience of skeptics answering "yes" or "no" should be inhibiting whatsoever. Many people JE reads limit their responses, too, in just that way.

Its just as possible there could be an advantage to Ian in that situation, since the audience -knows- what he's doing and wants him to be successful. (Isn't that what people say about JE's audience?)

Nevertheless, cold reader or medium...the key is whether or not the validations are honestly given. JE often gets misses and people often say "no". The audience, really, should make no difference. But can the cold reader get convincing hits?

Editing makes a difference for JE--but like most admitted cold readers, most mediums don't have that same advantage. So...I think the editing is a non-issue.

(

And as far as readings from admitted cold-readers go, I will still place my admittedly amateur, first try reading up against the vast majority of similar-length readings from any psychic medium.

Yes, I almost mentioned your reading in my post. However, let's not forget it was not pure cold reading--there was hot reading involved as well. And only the first part was good (quite good :) ).

Place it before anyone neutral in a list like ersby's from a few months back -- with no clues regarding whether it is from a professed cold reader or professed medium -- and I will give odds that it is not outed as one of the cold readings 7 times out of 10.
Another interesting experiment.....for Ersby? :confused:

Clancie

21st January 2004, 02:26 PM

Posted by voidx

I'll reserve all judgements until there's a transcript, or in this case even better, a DVD for TAM2 with the session included.
I predict it will not be on the TAM2 DVD, just as Jamy Ian Swiss's demo (of confirmation bias, imo) wasn't included in the TAM1 DVD. :(
Posted by voidx
I've in my opinion seen transcripts of people doing cold-reading that are quite comparable in many senses to what JE does, especially if you take his LKL readings into account.
Just curious. You mean ersby and NoZed? Or...who? :confused:
Posted by voidx I think if a cold-reader spent the necessary time to polish up a solid cold-reading act and added a schtick and gloss to it, that a cold-reader could very much do exactly what JE does.
So they keep saying....
There's been many examples where different cold-reading samples show hints of many different tactics used by JE, if someone could just roll them all together and practice them up, I think we could have a JE clone without that much trouble.
Well, there's a difference between a good patter and a good validation. But maybe some day.....

voidx

21st January 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...

Editing makes a difference for JE--but like most admitted cold readers, most mediums don't have that same advantage. So...I think the editing is a non-issue.

...snip...

Given the marked drop in quality of JE's own performances on LKL(unedited as far as we know) compared to CO (knowingly edited, to what degree remains debateable) I'd have to quite strongly disagree with you here. How much could editing have improved Ian's performance? Hard to say, but its a certainty that the editing could only IMPROVE his performance. I think its been pretty clearly shown that JE's performance improves under an edited environment. One would also have to assume the same for any medium or cold reader as well.

voidx

21st January 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I predict it will not be on the TAM2 DVD, just as Jamy Ian Swiss's demo (of confirmation bias, imo) wasn't included in the TAM1 DVD. :(

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Just curious. You mean ersby and NoZed? Or...who? :confused:

I'd have to go review that thread again, but I remember commenting on a couple of the cold-reading samples that they were imitiating somewhat JE's style. It might even have been NoZed's reading, I'll have to check.

So they keep saying....

I don't really much care what they say as its mostly my own opinion based on everything I've seen and read. The fact that no one has spent the time and effort to make it happen so far (in my opinion) doesn't change the fact that I don't think it would be that hard for someone with some talent to do.

Well, there's a difference between a good patter and a good validation. But maybe some day.....
While perhaps more consistent than others its always been my opinion that JE's validations are nothing spectacular, especially when one looks at his LKL sessions. Given the number of readings he's given, and the extreme rarity of his super "special" hits, I think its possible they can be accounted for by luck and skilled cold-reading and intuition. I myself have always maintained that his validations are on the vague side and are not at all extremely specific in their discription. The fact that his act and his schtick is consistent (or at least more consistent than others) is one of the major reasons he is good at what he does.

Clancie

21st January 2004, 03:08 PM

Posted by voidx

...I myself have always maintained that his validations are on the vague side and are not at all extremely specific in their discription. The fact that his act and his schtick is consistent (or at least more consistent than others) is one of the major reasons he is good at what he does.
Hi voidx,

One reason I've gone for mediumship readings of my own was that some of JE's hits were so interesting and seemed inexplicable as cold reading. But, of course, the idea of genuine mediumship also seemed completely implausible, too. A very interesting mystery to me, not at all the "open and shut case" of fraud that so many here think it is.

That's one reason that I've had readings of my own and some were, imo, much better than what JE does on television (either live on LKL or edited on Crossing Over). Were they so conclusive...so evidential...so undeniably proof of ADC that they resolved all doubts about this once and forever?

No (and, yes, yes, all anecdotal! :rolleyes: ). But, combined with reading about the work of other mediums...the experiences of other sitters (some who seem very credible)...familiarizing myself (I believe) with the vast majority of arguments against it....I've come to think "There might be something to it."

I argue for JE here because he's the medium most people are familiar with. But the idea "there might be something to it" does not rise and fall with JE.

voidx

21st January 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi voidx,

One reason I've gone for mediumship readings of my own was that some of JE's hits were so interesting and seemed inexplicable as cold reading. But, of course, the idea of genuine mediumship also seemed completely implausible, too. A very interesting mystery to me, not at all the "open and shut case" of fraud that so many here think it is.

That's one reason that I've had readings of my own and some were, imo, much better than what JE does on television (either live on LKL or edited on Crossing Over). Were they so conclusive...so evidential...so undeniably proof of ADC that they resolved all doubts about this once and forever?

No (and, yes, yes, all anecdotal! :rolleyes: ). But, combined with reading about the work of other mediums...the experiences of other sitters (some who seem very credible)...familiarizing myself (I believe) with the vast majority of arguments against it....I've come to think "There might be something to it."

I argue for JE here because he's the medium most people are familiar with. But the idea "there might be something to it" does not rise and fall with JE.
I'm aware of that and for the same reason think a cold-reader of equal skill would be nice, but unnecessary. The comparison is made mostly with JE because he is the most visible medium, and his process, even though in my opinion not entirely consistent, is more well known and documented than many other mediums. I know many do not consider him to be the best there is, and for that reason also I think it shouldn't be impossible, or even that difficult for someone to closely emulate his performance. It doesn't surprise me that no one has bothered to put in such an effort all though several claim too. For example Shermer claims he can and has performed better than JE. While there are perhaps performances recorded of Shermer doing this, I've never seen them and so must take his claim with as big a grain of salt as anyone elses simply because I cannot verify it for myself. I read his article where he posed as a psychic for a period of time and it read as though he performed quite convincingly. But at the end of the day its just an article and while I have no reason to believe he's lying, I don't take his word as gospel either. For myself I find it somewhat frustrating to have skeptics claim such things without anything concrete like even video footage of themselves doing so to back it up. It presents those that believe in mediumship with an easy out to dismiss their arguements, so I wonder why they bother to make the claim at all sometimes. If JE is your target of the day, then emulate his schtick as close as possible to show clearly how it is cold-reading.

But again, and I know we disagree here, I don't consider JE's performances impressive enough in the first place in their own right. So even without a comparable cold-reader I think there are many other things that lead me in my opinion that JE is likely not talking to dead folk.

CFLarsen

21st January 2004, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
We disagree about the "reasons" there's no good cold reading demo. I don't see any reason why an honest audience of skeptics answering "yes" or "no" should be inhibiting whatsoever. Many people JE reads limit their responses, too, in just that way.

They do? That's funny. I was under the impression that these people always told the truth. Because, if a sitter claims there is a hit, then it is a hit. Hey, guess I am wrong, then....

Originally posted by Clancie
Its just as possible there could be an advantage to Ian in that situation, since the audience -knows- what he's doing and wants him to be successful. (Isn't that what people say about JE's audience?)

********. You know that for cold reading to work, there has to be people who truly believe that the reader has paranormal abilities.

Originally posted by Clancie
Nevertheless, cold reader or medium...the key is whether or not the validations are honestly given. JE often gets misses and people often say "no". The audience, really, should make no difference. But can the cold reader get convincing hits?

Sure he can. You have seen this yourself. You just deny that it has happened.

Originally posted by Clancie
Editing makes a difference for JE--but like most admitted cold readers, most mediums don't have that same advantage. So...I think the editing is a non-issue.

Excuse me, what "difference"? Editing is a "non-issue"? Are you joking?

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, I almost mentioned your reading in my post. However, let's not forget it was not pure cold reading--there was hot reading involved as well. And only the first part was good (quite good :) ).

No, no....it was hot reading because you were told it was hot reading. If you had not known, would you not have considered it evidence of mediumship?

Originally posted by Clancie
Another interesting experiment.....for Ersby? :confused:

That's the Clancie we know: Always shoving the burden of evidence on somebody else. Why don't you actively seek evidence yourself?

I know, I know: It is not worth it. Why run the risk of you being wrong?

NoZed Avenger

21st January 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
NZA,

We disagree about the "reasons" there's no good cold reading demo.

Well, I haven't looked for a cold reading demo and have no idea what may or may not be out there. I know of no convincing cold reading demo -- but then I am not sure I can name any convincing "authentic" demonstration, either. I will admit that I have not looked for either, however -- there may well be.

I don't see any reason why an honest audience of skeptics answering "yes" or "no" should be inhibiting whatsoever. Many people JE reads limit their responses, too, in just that way.

This is a rather large, breezy assertion. I am not a JE scholar, but at least some of the readings I have seen were not limited. Some -- quite a few -- have the people volunteering all kinds of information. With people looking for confirmation, there seems (and this is opinion; I have not sat and counted) to be more of an effort to make things "fit." There is often an emotional need to connect that certainly provides the danger that such volunteering and "fitting the prediction to the facts" can occur.

Its just as possible there could be an advantage to Ian in that situation, since the audience -knows- what he's doing and wants him to be successful. (Isn't that what people say about JE's audience?)

It may or may not be possible (I consider it unlikely, for the reasons given above -- especially as the audience was familiar with the techniques used by cold readers to elicit information), but I was present -- and the answers were monosyballic. I certainly didn't think it was an advantage.

Yes, I almost mentioned your reading in my post. However, let's not forget it was not pure cold reading--there was hot reading involved as well. And only the first part was good (quite good :) ).

You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context. I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter. I had her name and a piece of readily visible jewelry, from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.

This could all be done by any competent cold reader -- in fact, with experience, I am sure that one could do percecptively -better- than my initial attempt. You keep saying that part of it was a hot reading -- but the same information would be present for any supposed psychic. That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.

You denigrate the reading (now) by saying it was a hot reading -- but the only way you know that is that I admitted it.

If I put the reading on tv and never explained my methods, the transcript mught even now be floating around the ether with various believers citings it with a postscrpit: "Explain THAT, skeptics. Explain how he got her middle name, and the twins. Explain THAT with cold reading." This is much what is happening with JE right now -- If I had not explained how I got the hit, I daresay people might still be speculating. Well, JE has never explained -- without that explanation, how sure can you be that some of his work isn't just as 'hot' as me seeing jewelry on someone?

And the rest of the sitting was bad? Really?

Twins?
Paternal Grandmother?
Fishing/Fishing Pole?
Younger Sister?

The only 'warm' part of the reading was the name Rose, itself. If only the first part was 'good,' then I maintain that 95% + of -every- single psychic medium's readings are likewise not good.

Which leaves us with what?

CFLarsen

21st January 2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Which leaves us with what?

Clancie in deep manure. Watch how she will worm her way around this.

Interesting Ian

21st January 2004, 08:09 PM

[i]Originally posted by Clancie

Throwing a topic open to the entire audience...then getting a string of "no's" for the "sitter"...is pretty consistent with the admitted cold reading demos that I've seen. Not very impressive....

Ummmm . . remember Clancie that Ian Rowland in a few months time will no doubt do another search on his name and might not take kindly to your comment when he sees it ;) LOL

Clancie

21st January 2004, 08:40 PM

Posted by Interesting Ian

Ummmm . . remember Clancie that Ian Rowland in a few months time will no doubt do another search on his name and might not take kindly to your comment when he sees it LOL
LOL, Ian!!!

Actually, that thought crossed my mind when I posted--and I wouldn't be surprised if he checked soon after TAM2! But Ian's a skeptic! He'll understand. :)

Besides, I'd be interested if he thought it went better than it seems to me from the two comments so far.

I have to tell the truth, after all. And I've been unimpressed by all the cold reading demos I've seen, including Ian's at Cal Tech.

From what I understand, he thought it went quite well on the PrimeTime Thursday show, but unfortunately we only saw 90 seconds of his 30 minute demonstration, and there's not even a way to get a transcript of the rest (or of the follow ups which were also heavily edited down). I know he did other cold reading/mediumship demos in his lectures here last year--so, yes, I'd be interested in his own assessment of how they went, there and at TAM.

(And if Shermer shows up here, lol, I'm also not afraid to say that I didn't find his mediumship demos in Skeptical Inquirer nearly as impressive as he did! :) )

And NZA, I'll be back later when I can look up that old thread of ersby's. I -think- I -did- say the same thing before--that the first part was better and that there was hot reading which accounted for the good start. But...I'll check...:)

Ladewig

21st January 2004, 08:52 PM

voidx

I'll reserve all judgements until there's a transcript, or in this case even better, a DVD for TAM2 with the session included.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie
I predict it will not be on the TAM2 DVD

Even if it does appear on the video recording, it may not be of much use because the "sitters" do not have microphones or cameras turned on them. All one will see and hear is Ian's responses to the sitters' responses.

NoZed Avenger

21st January 2004, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

And NZA, I'll be back later when I can look up that old thread of ersby's. I -think- I -did- say the same thing before--that the first part was better and that there was hot reading which accounted for the good start. But...I'll check...

Well, that may me why I began my post like this:

You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context.

So lets assume for purposes of discussion that you have said something similar before -- as we both seem to remember. I think you may be thrown off by my "now" statement after the above, but that was only meant to state that your opinion regarding the reading was formed after I had already admitted that it was cold reading.

I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter. I had her name and a piece of readily visible jewelry, from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.

This could all be done by any competent cold reader -- in fact, with experience, I am sure that one could do percecptively -better- than my initial attempt. You keep saying that part of it was a hot reading -- but the same information would be present for any supposed psychic. That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.

The only 'warm' part of the reading was the name Rose, itself. If only the first part was 'good,' then I maintain that 95% + of -every- single psychic medium's readings are likewise not good.

Which leaves us with what?

N/A

Garrette

21st January 2004, 09:53 PM

Lucianarchy:

Easy.

John will, and a cold reader won't, get tested under the same conditions, controls and protocols of the University of Arizona's (Gary Schwartz's) research department.

My offer still holds from the fall. Remember Steve's thread about Garrette accepts challenge?

I e-mailed Schwartz on 2 December. No response yet. I'll contact him again soon.

I am NOT suggesting Schwartz is avoiding responding. I e-mailed just before the holidays, and I have no idea of his schedule. Plus, there is plenty of time. My new availability date is not until late summer.

Remember, though, (and I made this clear in my e-mail): it is to be under the same conditions.

Garrette

21st January 2004, 10:04 PM

Clancie,

Was it you or Neo (I honestly do not remember which) who spoke of being at a JE seminar when he read someone else but you were certain it was meant for you. You (or Neo) just couldn't get JE's attention.

Since you (or Neo) are willing to credit JE and the spirits with a good reading even when the person they are reading disagrees, would you object to the same latitude for TAM2?

I wasn't there, but for those skeptics who were, do any of you consider the (apparently poor) reading that Ian gave the singled out volunteer as applying to you? Perhaps he simply couldn't get the communications clearly enough to target the right person.

NoZed Avenger

21st January 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by voidx

For myself I find it somewhat frustrating to have skeptics claim such things without anything concrete like even video footage of themselves doing so to back it up. It presents those that believe in mediumship with an easy out to dismiss their arguements, so I wonder why they bother to make the claim at all sometimes. If JE is your target of the day, then emulate his schtick as close as possible to show clearly how it is cold-reading.

You have a point. However, not everyone has the knack for this kind of thing to begin with. Even if they do, they may not have the time or resources to match someone that does this for a living.

Speaking for myself, I have a day job and a family. In order to become what I would consider an effective cold reader, I would want to take a fair amount of time and study up on demographics and technique, purchase other books, talk to some others in the business, and give some readings in order to hone the skill (I think actually doing it for people probably is the biggest help here).

If someone would like to give me a grant so that I can leave my job for a bit, I might consider it. But as it is, I would have to essentially cut off the majority of my extra time - so time with friends, family, magic, and reading would all suffer.

Sorry, but I am not willing to make that kind of commitment in order to emulate mediums -- especially when my efforts would be immediately and steadfastly ignored by 90-plus-percent of the fans out there.

N/A

Edited to remove the most egregious typing errors

NoZed Avenger

21st January 2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
I wasn't there, but for those skeptics who were, do any of you consider the (apparently poor) reading that Ian gave the singled out volunteer as applying to you? Perhaps he simply couldn't get the communications clearly enough to target the right person.

Well, Mr. Rowland gave readings for perhaps half a dozen different people, including me. As stated above, he got a few good hits, a larger number of more "pedestrian" ones, and had a fair number of what I consider misses.

Skeptics were generally unimpressed with the readings, but then they are generally unimpressed with JE's, too -- Frankly, I have to ask why believers are taking skeptics' word for how these readings are, since the skeptics' opinions regarding "real" mediumship cannot be trusted?

If someone maintains that the skeptics are wrong about the JE readings, then those same skeptics are just as likely to be wrong about Ian Rowland, are they not?

And your point is valid, too -- someone else in the audience may well have been willing to validate 100% of a reading, just as happened in the JE seminar you note above.

So, again - we're left with what in the way of differences?

N/A

Zep

21st January 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Very true. I have yet to see anyone point out the differences (and not just appeal to personal beliefs) between John Edward and a cold reader.

Anyone.

Any takers? I'd really like to know. I really would. Don't tell me that I am not "really" interested, because I am. My involvement in the skeptic movement should tell anyone that I really, really, really am interested in finding the answer.

Sure, you can dismiss me for not being really interested, but that doesn't really hold water, does it? Alas, while it would be extremely interesting not to mention highly amusing and entertaining, I'd like to reiterate that it would actually prove nothing at all if a professed cold-reader consistently emulated a so-called psychic. This is one of the classic logical fallacies, I'm afraid. If this IS done, it still does not make the psychic a fraud - maybe they are both not psychic, or maybe both ARE! The two are independent events.

It's like comparing two cars: If you can do 150mph in the Mustang, and then also do 150mph in the BMW, then you can conclude that the BMW is a Mustang. Doesn't hold water...

It is only the direct do-what-you-say-you-can testing that will disprove psychics or otherwise.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
So, again - we're left with what in the way of differences?

As I said, Clancie in deep manure. She has posted since your question, but not answered it. Yet another example of Clancie avoiding the tough questions.

Originally posted by Zep
Alas, while it would be extremely interesting not to mention highly amusing and entertaining, I'd like to reiterate that it would actually prove nothing at all if a professed cold-reader consistently emulated a so-called psychic. This is one of the classic logical fallacies, I'm afraid. If this IS done, it still does not make the psychic a fraud - maybe they are both not psychic, or maybe both ARE! The two are independent events.

It's like comparing two cars: If you can do 150mph in the Mustang, and then also do 150mph in the BMW, then you can conclude that the BMW is a Mustang. Doesn't hold water...

It is only the direct do-what-you-say-you-can testing that will disprove psychics or otherwise.

I quite agree. However, Clancie (and other believers) continue to make this point, so it could be nice to know just what differences exactly they are looking for.

However, we will not see this. It is far easier to just be vague and still maintain that you are right.

Matabiri

22nd January 2004, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Alas, while it would be extremely interesting not to mention highly amusing and entertaining, I'd like to reiterate that it would actually prove nothing at all if a professed cold-reader consistently emulated a so-called psychic. This is one of the classic logical fallacies, I'm afraid. If this IS done, it still does not make the psychic a fraud - maybe they are both not psychic, or maybe both ARE! The two are independent events.

However, do a search on "Banachek alpha" (or just look here: http://www.banachek.org/Articles/Project%20Alpha.htm ) for a fine example of why parapsychological testing is not entirely reliable...

(Apologies if everyone already knows about this)

Ersby

22nd January 2004, 03:52 AM

I, too, am on Schwartz’s list of cold readers (this time for telephone readings. Maybe even sitter silent, which should be fun.)

But I can’t believe that no one at TAM2 made any notes! A couple of examples of the things he said would be nice.

Unless, of course, you’re saving those notes for some big article thing later, in which case, you could at least let us know such notes exist.

Interesting Ian

22nd January 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Skeptics were generally unimpressed with the readings, but then they are generally unimpressed with JE's, too -- Frankly, I have to ask why believers are taking skeptics' word for how these readings are, since the skeptics' opinions regarding "real" mediumship cannot be trusted?

Good point, but one might suspect that skeptics would be more objective when it comes to their assessment of a known cold reader where as they might not be so objective in assessing an alleged medium. I mean skeptics will actually want a cold reader to perform impressively where as they don't want an alleged medium to perform competently. So if their assessment is that it wasn't an impressive performance I think that is telling.

Of course it is true that with an audience of believers, and if they did not know the purported psychic was really a cold reader, they will be much more psychologically inclined to try and interpret what a cold reader says to fit their situation.

So in the situation where the audience are believers, and unknown to them, it is a cold reader doing the readings, how does this compare to the best allegedly real mediums?

BillHoyt

22nd January 2004, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So if their assessment is that it wasn't an impressive performance I think that is telling.

Really? Funny, I bet we skeptics say that to all the mediums.

Interesting Ian

22nd January 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri

However, do a search on "Banachek alpha" (or just look here: http://www.banachek.org/Articles/Project%20Alpha.htm ) for a fine example of why parapsychological testing is not entirely reliable...

(Apologies if everyone already knows about this)

This was over 20 years ago, and note that if the conjurors had have been detected we would never have heard of it! Maybe the skeptics are persistantly trying to fool parapsychological researchers, using conjurors or whatever, but they always get exposed. Would CSICOP and Randi et al shout this from the roof tops? I somewhat suspect not! LOL

No scientific testing whatsoever is entirely reliable. The pro-psychic bias is a problem, but a bias exists in all other areas of science as researchers always wish their experiments to be successful! It's a problem intrinsic to science. Why does parapsychology get attacked more than any other area of science then? Well we know the answer to that! Emotionally and psychologically, the skeptics cannot countenance the idea that the world doesn't operate along the principles they think it does. This has always been a problem with any major discovery about the world. The skeptics do their damn best to try and put the breaks on the progress of human knowledge :( Anyway, this certainly doesn't justify the lack of funding! Indeed such a suggestion is absurd. More money could be used to make the research even more rigorous than it presently is, and could be used to fund very promising areas such as apparent anomalous cognition during dreaming etc. But what else but a complete non-sequitur could you expect from a guy like Randi? :rolleyes: Anyway, with parapsychology, at least we know the experimental protocols are tighter than any other area of science and are being tightened all the time. But even with parapsycholgical research, and especially over 20 years ago, not all of it is going to be absolutely watertight. Maybe none of it is. Even so I really don't understand the purpose of your link.

Jeff Corey

22nd January 2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
But I can’t believe that no one at TAM2 made any notes! A couple of examples of the things he said would be nice.
Unless, of course, you’re saving those notes for some big article thing later, in which case, you could at least let us know such notes exist.
Notes could be attacked as subjective and unreliable. John Edward's fans provide ample evidence of that.
However, there is a continuous video record of every presentation at the meeting. When everyone recovers from the tremendous effort expended to run the meeting, we could ask for a clip of the readings.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This was over 20 years ago, and note that if the conjurors had have been detected we would never have heard of it!

Do some more studying. The Alpha kids blew the whistle themselves, they were never "detected".

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 07:41 AM

Posted by Jeff Corey

we could ask for a clip of the readings.
That sounds reasonable, but unlikely to happen. (I'm remembering Ian's feelings about people not posting his photograph from the Cal Tech demo, re: copyright. I doubt he would agree with this idea.)

As for notes...well, something is better than nothing. I'm very surprised, too, that apparently no one took any notes of the cold reading demonstration. Perhaps NoZed Avenger remembers some specific details of the reading he had......

Interesting Ian

22nd January 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This was over 20 years ago, and note that if the conjurors had have been detected we would never have heard of it!

Do some more studying. The Alpha kids blew the whistle themselves, they were never "detected". [/B]

:rolleyes:

Please pay attention Claus. This is why we are hearing about it. If they had have been detected we wouldn't have heard of it.

voidx

22nd January 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
You have a point. However, not everyone has the knack for this kind of thing to begin with. Even if they do, they may not have the time or resources to match someone that does this for a living.

Speaking for myself, I have a day job and a family. In order to become what I would consider an effective cold reader, I would want to take a fair amount of time and study up on demographics and technique, purchase other books, talk to some others in the business, and give some readings in order to hone the skill (I think actually doing it for people probably is the biggest help here).

If someone would like to give me a grant so that I can leave my job for a bit, I might consider it. But as it is, I would have to essentially cut off the majority of my extra time - so time with friends, family, magic, and reading would all suffer.

Sorry, but I am not willing to make that kind of commitment in order to emulate mediums -- especially when my efforts would be immediately and steadfastly ignored by 90-plus-percent of the fans out there.

N/A

Edited to remove the most egregious typing errors
Oh I agree completely. Its precisely because of examples of cold reading like you and Ersby have provided us, as well as Rowland, that I think if someone where to put in that time, they could exactly emulate his style. By showing us what you were able to accomplish with a minimum of effort, it makes it much easier to believe that you could reach a JE level of skill given enough time and effort. Especially telling are the fact that JE's LKL readings would likely be quite indistinguishable from say your's or Ersby's in quality. The only thing people have to pick it blindly from a list is JE's style of presentation. If you can match JE's lackluster performances on LKL with only a little practice, I think that's very telling. Its probably the main reason for myself that I don't think its necessary to have a direct cold-reader comparison to JE, to me the possiblity seems very likely.

But as this all relates to say Shermers statement, you aren't going around claiming you can currently best JE performance wise. Rather you say given your experiences so far, you could quite easily see that with enough practice you could, and you have your transcripted readings to help back that up.

thaiboxerken

22nd January 2004, 08:07 AM

Unlike magic tricks, cold-reading demos are not impressive if you already know that the person is cold-reading.

It's like telling a person that you are telling a lie, and then asking if you sounded truthful while telling the lie. The subject is already aware and biased.

The people most impressed by cold-readings are the ones that don't know what cold-reading is.

In short, Clancie will never be impressed by a cold-reader, unless that cold-reader is John Edward. JE has never admitted to cold-reading and therefore Clancie is impressed by his "ability".

There is no objective standard for determining who really is a "medium" and who is not, when it comes to believers.

Interesting Ian

22nd January 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Unlike magic tricks, cold-reading demos are not impressive if you already know that the person is cold-reading.

It's like telling a person that you are telling a lie, and then asking if you sounded truthful while telling the lie. The subject is already aware and biased.

The people most impressed by cold-readings are the ones that don't know what cold-reading is.

In short, Clancie will never be impressed by a cold-reader, unless that cold-reader is John Edward. JE has never admitted to cold-reading and therefore Clancie is impressed by his "ability".

There is no objective standard for determining who really is a "medium" and who is not, when it comes to believers.

Don't be absurd, you can't generalise like that. A lot of believers might be like this, but to say all believers are, is to overstate the case, and at the same time your utterances lose credibility in the eyes of non-skeptics.

Another thing I'm unhappy about is why does only JE as a putative medium only ever get discussed? I have no idea if JE is a genuine medium or not. But what I'm very unhappy about is concentrating on an individual who is no doubt making a great deal of money out of his alleged abilities. I tend to be extremely cautious where there's such vested interests in convincing people he's really talking to the dead.

And this begs another question. Why do skeptics concentrate on this particular individual? Surely by far the best policy would be to concentrate on a medium who is regarded as being very good, but is not making a colossal amount of money out of his alleged abilities? If it could be shown that a good cold reader could duplicate this individuals results, then this might lend a little bit of support to the idea that mediums do not have any anomalous abilities. But even if JE was exposed as a fraud, well that wouldn't really mean a great deal would it?
Skeptics are simply adopting their normal tactics of attacking easy targets. It might impress fellow skeptics, but it does nothing to persaude those of a more rational objective disposition.

They are kinda like saying, look this old decrepit person can't run a 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, therefore no human being whatsoever can.

Not an impressive line of reasoning I'm afraid.

BillHoyt

22nd January 2004, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

:rolleyes:

Please pay attention Claus. This is why we are hearing about it. If they had have been detected we wouldn't have heard of it.

He's drunk again. Serve some salt with that pretzel logic and I might break open a pint of wee heavy.

voidx

22nd January 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Don't be absurd, you can't generalise like that. A lot of believers might be like this, but to say all believers are, is to overstate the case, and at the same time your utterances lose credibility in the eyes of non-skeptics.

Another thing I'm unhappy about is why does only JE as a putative medium only ever get discussed? I have no idea if JE is a genuine medium or not. But what I'm very unhappy about is concentrating on an individual who is no doubt making a great deal of money out of his alleged abilities. I tend to be extremely cautious where there's such vested interests in convincing people he's really talking to the dead.

And this begs another question. Why do skeptics concentrate on this particular individual? Surely by far the best policy would be to concentrate on a medium who is regarded as being very good, but is not making a colossal amount of money out of his alleged abilities? If it could be shown that a good cold reader could duplicate this individuals results, then this might lend a little bit of support to the idea that mediums do not have any anomalous abilities. But even if JE was exposed as a fraud, well that wouldn't really mean a great deal would it?
Skeptics are simply adopting their normal tactics of attacking easy targets. It might impress fellow skeptics, but it does nothing to persaude those of a more rational objective disposition.

They are kinda like saying, look this old decrepit person can't run a 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, therefore no human being whatsoever can.

Not an impressive line of reasoning I'm afraid.
You certainly do have a point here. But most times he's the example that your average believer in mediumship will bring up, and so he ends up getting discussed. The other point is, is that while not really very impressive to most skeptics, he does have a quite large amount of work which we can observe and critique, and test the claims and assumptions of those that believe in mediumship, unlike most less well known mediums. I myself do not have a vested enough interest in this to go out and personally research individual mediums to find the best possible and then go about emulating and debunking them, I've enough expensive hobbies as it is :). For the most part I would assume most people on here are armchair skeptics and so JE is a readily available source of transcripts and content which we can criticize objectively. While showing JE as a fraud would not be a decisive blow against the theory of ADC or telepathy or what have you, it would show that the majority of people believing in mediumship as it pertains to JE didn't really have a very sound framework by which to judge what is actually "mediumship", and would probably result in your average believer having to swallow most of their words. Those that have a more in depth knowledge would still have their arguements and examples of quality mediums though.

Edited to add: Also remember that while those with perhaps more in depth knowledge of mediums and its process might not consider JE very skilled or impressive, there are a large number of people that do consider him to be very good. So I think on some level we're more than justified trying to point out to them that he's not.

thaiboxerken

22nd January 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Another thing I'm unhappy about is why does only JE as a putative medium only ever get discussed?.

It's because Clancie believes in JE and she's the believer most often debated with about mediumship. JE is only more successful than most mediums, however, his tricks are the same. Clancie fails to apply critical thinking and logic to her belief in JE but yet she does apply it to other "mediums". This is why JE is discussed most of the time. If Clancie's favorite "medium" was someone else, we'd be discussing that person instead. The point is, Clancie has subjective reasons for believing JE is real, not objective reasons.

Clancie can feel free to prove me wrong about that by providing the objective criteria for determining real mediumship or not.

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 11:09 AM

Posted by voidx

But most times he's (JE) the example that your average believer in mediumship will bring up, and so he ends up getting discussed.
Hi voidx,

Just skimming the thread (still haven't had much time to post about some of the detailed things), but I have to completely and totally and unequivocally (am I emphasizing this enough) disagree with this! :eek:

In terms of this forum, JE is discussed so much because he seems to be the only example that most skeptics are familiar with.

I have brought up other mediums several times...I also started a thread about Arthur Ford (very famous, fairly recent) and it went absolutely nowhere.

I know that Mike D. and dharlow have mentioned SPR research...Piper...Palladino...Home...etc. with very little response around here. Not only do skeptics hardly seem acquainted with the "going beyond JE" areas of mediumship, but very few even seem interested!

As far as mediums go, it's "JE, JE" from you guys. JE and cold reading seem to be about as far as most people with strong opinions about mediumship here have looked into this subject (and, for many, that apparently is enough!)

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 11:22 AM

Posted by thaiboxerken

If Clancie's favorite "medium" was someone else, we'd be discussing that person instead
It's all about me! :) I can't help but be touched! :)

Seriously, tbk, this ranks as one of the most silly statements I've read from you. JE isn't my "favorite" medium. The two mediums I had my best readings are people that I'm sure you've never heard of.

As for the famous ones, well, which would you like to discuss with me? Piper? Home? Palladino? I'd prefer Piper, since her work is the best documented and researched. But, if you have another preference, please, by all means, don't hold back! :p

Barkhorn1x

22nd January 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

In terms of this forum, JE is discussed so much because he seems to be the only example that most skeptics are familiar with.

Wrong - I am VERY familiar w/ those other 2 frauds Sylvia Brown and James VP - as are many others.

I have brought up other mediums several times...I also started a thread about Arthur Ford (very famous, fairly recent) and it went absolutely nowhere.

Errr...he is...oh how do I say this? DEAD!! (perhaps he talks to himself, he, he ;) ) Ya got video that is available on-line?

I know that Mike D. and dharlow have mentioned SPR research...Piper...Palladino...Home...etc. with very little response around here.

Ya got transcripts for these people, video?? Do they appear on TV, do they do arena tours??

Not only do skeptics hardly seem acquainted with the "going beyond JE" areas of mediumship, but very few even seem interested!

It's like this Clancie - really it is;
1. JE, SB and JVP appear on LKL time and time again. LKL can be seen by most of us, LKL had transcripts that we can study. LKL provides evidence about the supposed abilities of these poeple.
2. Ford died in 1971. Unless you can point us to video that shows him in action, all we have to go on are others descriptions of his supposed gifts. Can't you see why this isn't enough???
3. Finally, andf for the last time, the burden of proof is on you!!!!!!! Do not expect the skeptic to fall all over himself/herself trying to disprove your odd name drop. GIVE us evidence.

As far as mediums go, it's "JE, JE" from you guys. JE and cold reading seem to be about as far as most people with strong opinions about mediumship here have looked into this subject (and, for many, that apparently is enough!)

Hmmm...this is an odd statement, coming from JE's strongest supporter. Really, you show yourself to be quite foolish here.

Barkhorn.

Mercutio

22nd January 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

He's drunk again. Serve some salt with that pretzel logic and I might break open a pint of wee heavy. Sorry, Hoyt, but you owe Ian an apology for this one. He makes perfect sense here.

He is saying that we, the skeptical community, know about the alpha project because it was successful. Had the researchers discovered the boys, we would not have heard about it. We can never know this, of course, but it is not an altogether unreasonable assumption. Your comment Do some more studying. The Alpha kids blew the whistle themselves, they were never "detected". does not blow a hole in Ian's argument; it reinforces it. It is because they were not detected that they are such a story in the skeptical community.

Now, have the decency to apologize to Ian.

Barkhorn1x

22nd January 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I'd prefer Piper, since her work is the best documented and researched. But, if you have another preference, please, by all means, don't hold back! :p

She did most of her "work" around the turn of the LAST century and died in 1950!!! Once again, we have no way to prove that she had any powers at all, we simply have ancedotal tales of her ability to perform.

Finally;

"To upset the conclusion that all crows are black, there is no need to seek demonstration that no crows are black; it is sufficient to produce one white crow; a single one is sufficient."

Yea, and I'm still waiting for sufficient proof of that one white crow.

Barkhorn.

voidx

22nd January 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi voidx,

Just skimming the thread (still haven't had much time to post about some of the detailed things), but I have to completely and totally and unequivocally (am I emphasizing this enough) disagree with this! :eek:

In terms of this forum, JE is discussed so much because he seems to be the only example that most skeptics are familiar with.

And why would the majority of skeptics be familiar with him? I'm not denying that this board is JE centric in most of its discussions of mediumship, but then the majority of conversation about this type of mediumship uses JE as an example. Do you figure there are more forums and sites dedicated to JE, or to any other example of less known mediums? I admitted that most skeptics are likely armchair skeptics, and so JE would likely be the one medium they were familiar with because he's so successful. Now please do me the service of admitting that this is probably overwhelmingly true of the believer crowd as well.

I have brought up other mediums several times...I also started a thread about Arthur Ford (very famous, fairly recent) and it went absolutely nowhere.

Do you consider yourself average in your knowledge of mediumship? My post clearly makes a distinction between the majority of normal believers not knowing anything besides the JE's and Van Praaghs. Yes you've given these examples so you likely fall into my category of those with more in-depth knowledge, but I'm most certain most people that believe in JE don't know anymore about Piper et al than the average skeptic. As for it going nowhere barkhorn makes a good point, we have discussed these other mediums to a certain extent, but many of them are either dead, or do not have transcripts or video footage of their skills and performance so conversation is stunted because of a lack of quality information.

I know that Mike D. and dharlow have mentioned SPR research...Piper...Palladino...Home...etc. with very little response around here. Not only do skeptics hardly seem acquainted with the "going beyond JE" areas of mediumship, but very few even seem interested!

But there has been discussion of SPR and some of the others to a certain extent. As for the last sentence most average believers would fit into that category as well. My intial experiences here in getting into the conversations of mediumship were strictly JE based. There was no mention of Piper et al until after hard questions were put to the process of what JE does, then out comes Piper and the others. I personally have questioned many different aspects of mediumship, trying to get at the actual process, rather than the artist because in my mind, the process itself doesn't seem to work, or is at best inconsistent depending who you talk to.

As far as mediums go, it's "JE, JE" from you guys. JE and cold reading seem to be about as far as most people with strong opinions about mediumship here have looked into this subject (and, for many, that apparently is enough!)

But obviously we didn't start having bitter discussions about JE by ourselves. Its just as likely that discussions began initially here about JE because of his exposure and success. Most skeptics after having reviewed him probably thought that, well if this is supposed to be a good example of mediumship, and I find it this unimpressive, I'm not very inclined to find out more. I was almost tempted the same way myself, but since certain other mediums started to be mentioned, then well I decided to do some extra looking around. I'm not an expert by any means on those other mediums listed, but the information I found was so vague and old it was hard to get an objective idea of just how good they might have been.

No offense either but whenever someone on here makes a crack about JE (justified or not) your usually quick as lightning to jump in to his defense. Why not comment that while you think JE does some things that can't potentially be explained by mundane reasons you actually think this list of mediums (complete with links) provides a far superior example of mediumship and recommend people go read those instead. IF they don't its not your fault, but at least you've laid the information at their feet. If you continue to go over the JE arguement alone then its just as much your fault as anyones wouldn't you agree?

CFLarsen

22nd January 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
:rolleyes:

Please pay attention Claus. This is why we are hearing about it. If they had have been detected we wouldn't have heard of it.

I stand corrected. I did not read properly. Can I use jetlag as an excuse? (It really hits me dang hard....) :)

Originally posted by Clancie
In terms of this forum, JE is discussed so much because he seems to be the only example that most skeptics are familiar with.

That is so untrue, and you know it. JVP and Sylvia have been discussed at length here.

Originally posted by Clancie
I have brought up other mediums several times...I also started a thread about Arthur Ford (very famous, fairly recent) and it went absolutely nowhere.

Perhaps that is because there was nothing - aside from AF being a fake - to discuss? He is dead, Clancie. And he sure hasn't come across with any messages since.

Originally posted by Clancie
I know that Mike D. and dharlow have mentioned SPR research...Piper...Palladino...Home...etc. with very little response around here. Not only do skeptics hardly seem acquainted with the "going beyond JE" areas of mediumship, but very few even seem interested!

********! If you have real evidence of any paranormal phenomenon, you bring it on and we will discuss it.

Originally posted by Clancie
As far as mediums go, it's "JE, JE" from you guys. JE and cold reading seem to be about as far as most people with strong opinions about mediumship here have looked into this subject (and, for many, that apparently is enough!)

A lie. Pure and simple. Yes, it is a lie, because you know better.

NoZed Avenger

22nd January 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Perhaps NoZed Avenger remembers some specific details of the reading he had......

I would prefer to finish discussion on my last points before moving to a new topic.

N/A

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 02:02 PM

Posted by voidx

Now please do me the service of admitting that this is probably overwhelmingly true of the believer crowd as well.
Okay, but "too" wasn't included in the remark I was addressing. (The only caveat would be if believers were familiar with other mediums because they would be more likely to seek out a mediumship reading of their own). But overall, I agree with you.
I'm most certain most people that believe in JE don't know anymore about Piper et al than the average skeptic.
I don't know. Maybe, like me, they'd be more curious. This combination--interest, curiosity and doubt--could very well lead people to being motivated to learn more about the subject and other mediums. Just a thought. Neither of us have statistics to back up a view, one way or the other.
But there has been discussion of SPR and some of the others to a certain extent.
Very minimal content-discussion, imo. (I'm not talking about posts bashing Keen or Fry personally).
I personally have questioned many different aspects of mediumship, trying to get at the actual process, rather than the artist because in my mind, the process itself doesn't seem to work, or is at best inconsistent depending who you talk to.
Yes, but, as with politics, the frame of reference (assumptions) one starts with seem to make a big difference. But, I've enjoyed reading your thoughts about "the process".
But obviously we didn't start having bitter discussions about JE by ourselves.
Hard to say. If I went away, and JE was still on the air, I'm sure an appearance on LKL would elicit some "Biggest douchebag in the universe" comments from someone here...along with the colorful invective you can see in xouper's thread in Community about the fans rallying behind the show. Imo, people here seem to like to take shots at him, whether a "believer's" around or not.

No offense either but whenever someone on here makes a crack about JE (justified or not) your usually quick as lightning to jump in to his defense.
Its the Libra in me. :) (Just kidding, please! No threads from the usual group!)
Why not comment that while you think JE does some things that can't potentially be explained by mundane reasons you actually think this list of mediums (complete with links) provides a far superior example of mediumship and recommend people go read those instead.
Well, Steve posted the link to SPR online which is a huge and useful database that I bet no one here ever pursued.
IF they don't its not your fault, but at least you've laid the information at their feet.
Other than SPR most information is in books, not online. dharlow already recommended quite a few good ones. Did anyone purchase them? I bought three.

Steve gave the best online resource and it was seemingly ignored. Beyond that, there are books ("most of them about mediums who are dead...worthless!")...more books ("self serving auto-biographies of the living mediums detailing how good they are...the phonies!")...more books about sitters' experiences ("gullible believers telling anecdotes about pink unicorns") and only one contemporary researcher who's published his studies (yep, Schwartz..."sloppy, sloppy, etc.")

What kinds of references did you have in mind?
If you continue to go over the JE arguement alone then its just as much your fault as anyones wouldn't you agree?
You, like Barkhorn1x, make an excellent point! :)

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 02:08 PM

Posted by NoZed Avenger

I would prefer to finish discussion on my last points before moving to a new topic.
Well, um, with all due respect, I think the topic of this thread came first....:confused:

thaiboxerken

22nd January 2004, 02:41 PM

most skeptics are familiar with.

I would have to say most Americans, not just skeptics.

I also started a thread about Arthur Ford (very famous, fairly recent) and it went absolutely nowhere.

Who? I would think a famous person would be well known.

I know that Mike D. and dharlow have mentioned SPR research...Piper...Palladino...Home...etc. with very little response around here. Not only do skeptics hardly seem acquainted with the "going beyond JE" areas of mediumship, but very few even seem interested!

This is just a lie. Many of these other "mediums" have been discussed. SPR research has been discussed as well. The discussion is extensive, yet short. It really comes down to the fact that there is NO evidence to support mediumship.

As far as mediums go, it's "JE, JE" from you guys.

And you as well. You never seem to miss a cue to mention JE when someone mentions cold-reading.

JE and cold reading seem to be about as far as most people with strong opinions about mediumship here have looked into this subject (and, for many, that apparently is enough!)

Since there is no evidence to support the claim that mediumship is a reality, is there really a need to look into it at all? Is it wrong to disbelieve in pixies without looking into the history of them?

JE isn't my "favorite" medium.

Yet you mention him alot.

The two mediums I had my best readings are people that I'm sure you've never heard of.

Probably not. Care to offer names and any evidence that these people really have superpowers? How many "mediums" have you went to? How much did it cost for a visit?

Piper? Home? Palladino? I'd prefer Piper, since her work is the best documented and researched.

I'd prefer to stick with reality. Let's start with your objective criteria for determining the difference between a fake medium and a real one.

The point still stands. You will not be impressed, or admit you are impressed, by anyone that claims to be a cold-reader. A cold-reader that claims to be a medium, however, is likely to impress you based on your own subjective biases.

Very minimal content-discussion, imo. (I'm not talking about posts bashing Keen or Fry personally).

The credibility of the researchers is a valid discussion, especially when it comes to paranormal claims.

If I went away, and JE was still on the air, I'm sure an appearance on LKL would elicit some "Biggest douchebag in the universe" comments from someone here...

True, but ANY mediumm or psychic that appears on LKL would illicit similar threads. JE seems to be in the spotlight more often than the others.

Steve posted the link to SPR online which is a huge and useful database that I bet no one here ever pursued.

Because it's a collection of crap. Sorry, but it should be the believers that give us the evidence that supports their claims. I don't believe in mediumship because I have seen no evidence of it. Please show me some real evidence and I might change my mind. Giving a link and saying to look for it does nothing to convince me.

Other than SPR most information is in books, not online. dharlow already recommended quite a few good ones. Did anyone purchase them? I bought three.

No. Have you bought any books on the existence of bigfoot? Have you researched how to cast spells?

What kinds of references did you have in mind?

Reliable, credible references that can withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community.

I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?

Barkhorn1x

22nd January 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Beyond that, there are books ("most of them about mediums who are dead...worthless!")...more books ("self serving auto-biographies of the living mediums detailing how good they are...the phonies!")...more books about sitters' experiences ("gullible believers telling anecdotes about pink unicorns") and only one contemporary researcher who's published his studies (yep, Schwartz..."sloppy, sloppy, etc.")

What kinds of references did you have in mind?

You, like Barkhorn1x, make an excellent point! :)

Bravo, Clancie - now you're getting it!

Barkhorn.

NoZed Avenger

22nd January 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, um, with all due respect, I think the topic of this thread came first....:confused:

You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context. I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter. I had her name and a piece of readily visible jewelry, from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.

This could all be done by any competent cold reader -- in fact, with experience, I am sure that one could do percecptively -better- than my initial attempt. You keep saying that part of it was a hot reading -- but the same information would be present for any supposed psychic. That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.

You denigrate the reading (now) by saying it was a hot reading -- but the only way you know that is that I admitted it.

If I put the reading on tv and never explained my methods, the transcript mught even now be floating around the ether with various believers citings it with a postscrpit: "Explain THAT, skeptics. Explain how he got her middle name, and the twins. Explain THAT with cold reading." This is much what is happening with JE right now -- If I had not explained how I got the hit, I daresay people might still be speculating. Well, JE has never explained -- without that explanation, how sure can you be that some of his work isn't just as 'hot' as me seeing jewelry on someone?

And the rest of the sitting was bad? Really?

Twins?
Paternal Grandmother?
Fishing/Fishing Pole?
Younger Sister?

The only 'warm' part of the reading was the name Rose, itself. If only the first part was 'good,' then I maintain that 95% + of -every- single psychic medium's readings are likewise not good.

Which leaves us with what?

With all due respect.

If you don't want to continue the discussion from the point it had reached back on page one, just come out and say it. I won't press further; I won't follow you from thread to thread.

But -please-, just say so. If you have a response, please quote the part responded to. If you have no response, then say that and we're done.

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 04:28 PM

Posted by NoZed Avenger

Okay, but I didn't start this thread to argue about cold reading (again)--I wanted to know if there'd been any new demonstrations of it. :( I'll address your points; I hope you'll address my question, too.
You have said this about 'hot' reading before, but I really don't understand why that distinction makes a difference in this context. I had no information or advantage that would not be available to JE (or most psychics) on seeing a sitter.
There's one difference. The sitter didn't know you had access to her name. If I go to a reading and someone says my name, its a little different than being introduced to a small crowd and then producing a correct name. You also had a chance to see her close enough to observe a small piece of jewelry; JE doesn't have that opportunity in his crowds.
from which I concluded her middle name and the name of a grandmother. I then got very lucky on "twins" and a couple of other items.
I told you, good "thinking on your feet Sherlock-Holmes style" for that part. That's all the first half.
That is -especially- true for JE, who has the names and birthdates available to him for every person in his studio audience prior to the show.
That would be more significant to me if JE's hits were often the person's name and his/her birthdate.

You denigrate the reading (now) by saying it was a hot reading -- but the only way you know that is that I admitted it.
I don't denigrate it; it's a fact. How would you have replicated that same effect in an auditorium of 3000 people--no assigned seating?
If I put the reading on tv and never explained my methods, the transcript mught even now be floating around the ether with various believers citings it with a postscrpit: "Explain THAT, skeptics. Explain how he got her middle name, and the twins. Explain THAT with cold reading."
Maybe. Maybe like Ian on PT (or, yes, JE on CO), editing would have helped you out. But its not all about editing. That's why I've made a lot of effort to see mediumship live and in person.
Well, JE has never explained -- without that explanation, how sure can you be that some of his work isn't just as 'hot' as me seeing jewelry on someone?
He, perhaps like you in this circumstance, has the motive...unlike you, not the opportunity. (And he has explained "ADC". You just don't accept his explanation....)

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 04:32 PM

Part 2, NoZed, (a long question...and didn't I already address this in the original thread? :confused: )

And the rest of the sitting was bad? Really?
I find the second half very weak, yes.

“6” connection – either a connection to June or the sixth of the month? A Miss

You stretch it...
"anniversary? special occasion? for grandma?" It's still A Miss

"paternal grandmother?" -- 50/50 chance. You got it right.

"father"...(you already know he's passed) "a little boy fishing. Is there someone who – is fishing important to anyone?"

So...her father fished at some time as a child. Depending on your part of the country, that probably isn't unusual..

You pad with emotions...yes, some may sound a bit like you here, but it isn't evidential...: "because I am seeing a little boy fishing, and getting a feeling like almost exasperation. It- It isn’t anger or anything like that. More like “oh, he’s fishing again” kind of thing. Like he was always doing it, or always wanting to do it. And I’m getting a picture of a dark green or dark fishing pole. Either dark, dark green or black with green on it, and I want to say it is connected to the boy. Does that make sense?"

The sitter laughs. Doesn't seem to be getting anything evidential from all this description. A Miss

"a sister" Yes. "Younger" Yes. Good guessing. No names. No detail (other than 50/50 brother/sister; 50/50 older/younger. Fine effort...not evidential).

"I’m also getting some concern...finances...or your job....[i]Lol. I read Ian's book, too. This didn't apparently yield anything (and rightly so!)

...children connected to your work, but not directly. Not like you’re a teacher, but somehow connected to schools or schoolwork. Do you understand that?

No validation recalled or recorded.

"And its like- its like you want to be more creative and do something more creative, like your job is not allowing you that, and you are sometimes frustrated with it, but you are concerned about making it, or being a success. Does that make sense?"

Lukewarm response from sitter, "Some". Again, this is Ian's book...no mediumship here...not much psychic payoff either.

Then you list a bunch of generalities about her job which, really, probably apply to nearly everyone... ......."I believe that this is related to your job, that she feels that you have been dissatisfied with some parts of your job, because- I feel there was a big change within the last year or so? There was some kind of change in how you have been looking at your job and the chance to do something else or make a change related to that?"

Nothing impressive here. Sorry.

S: Yeah. (followed by "advice from grandma not to worry" which elicits a noncommital grunt). Again...nothing.

Success means just having more money to some people, but others would be happy to have things published or- Or just know that they have created something new for themselves, even if no one else saw it. Does that make sense?

Sitter agrees. In real life, instead some sitters would do this :rolleyes:

Because I get the feeling that she understood success and the real meaning; and I am getting- getting a real feeling that she wants you to know that understanding too.

S: Okay. Nothing.

M: And let me just say, to end this- I get a very strong impression that you are independent- a very independent thinker, but you sometimes let yourself be talked into listening to other people and go against your instincts, but then you usually regret not just going with your gut. Do you understand that?

S: Yes. [laughing]

More "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading", imo......"You're this...and you're also this opposite thing...."

M: Okay, and she is telling you to trust yourself more and your own decisions more. Okay.

Nothing much here.

What can I say, NZA? You are as good as Shermer, maybe better, and he thought he could go pro! But it doesn't do it for me. The first part is pretty good, but the second isn't evidential at all.
Which leaves us with what?
Barkhorn1x's Theory.

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 04:49 PM

Posted by thaiboxerken

I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?
To my satisfaction, more or less, though not to yours.
Who? I would think a famous person would be well known.
He -is- well known, even if you haven't heard of him.
Since there is no evidence to support the claim that mediumship is a reality, is there really a need to look into it at all? Is it wrong to disbelieve in pixies without looking into the history of them?
A bit of a tautology here, ken, but don't let it bother you. I understand the evidence for mediumship is no different to you than the evidence for pixies.
I'd prefer to stick with reality. Let's start with your objective criteria for determining the difference between a fake medium and a real one.
Oh. I thought you asked me to pick someone we could talk about. Guess not....

The point still stands. You will not be impressed, or admit you are impressed, by anyone that claims to be a cold-reader. A cold-reader that claims to be a medium, however, is likely to impress you based on your own subjective biases.
Wrong. I'm very open to seeing a good cold reading. If people here think Ian was disappointing in LV, then I don't think I missed a good cold reading there either. I'm still looking though...One of these days....
Please show me some real evidence and I might change my mind. Giving a link and saying to look for it does nothing to convince me.
I know.
I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?
For you? No.

P.S. :clap: Nice change in posting style, tbk. I may have to go back to your thread in Flame Wars and change my vote if you continue down this path..... :p

TLN

22nd January 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
For you? No.

For anyone? Doubtful.

thaiboxerken

22nd January 2004, 06:51 PM

To my satisfaction, more or less, though not to yours.

Could you list the objective criteria that you use, so we can discuss it?

He -is- well known, even if you haven't heard of him.

And most of my peers haven't heard of him either.

. I understand the evidence for mediumship is no different to you than the evidence for pixies.

Yes, because the evidence for both are nonexistent. Prove me wrong, find me something that passes scientific scrutiny.

I thought you asked me to pick someone we could talk about. Guess not....

Exactly. It's rather pointless to talk about specific "mediums" until we know your criteria for determining who's a real medium and who's not. Can you present your objective criteria from differentiating the difference between cold-reading and a true medium reading?

Wrong. I'm very open to seeing a good cold reading. If people here think Ian was disappointing in LV, then I don't think I missed a good cold reading there either. I'm still looking though...One of these days....

No, I'm correct. It's virtually impossible to convince yourself that the cold-reading is good because you already know it's.. "just a cold reading". "True mediumship" is what really impresses you.

For you? No.

I doubt that you have any objective criteria. It is my opinion that you determine a true medium from a fake by using subjective criteria. You could prove me wrong by simply listing your objective criteria for differentiating a cold-reading from a true reading. Until you post that criteria, I'll assume it doesn't exist.

P.S. Nice change in posting style, tbk. I may have to go back to your thread in Flame Wars and change my vote if you continue down this path.....

I don't think you can in this forum. Anyone that voted no, however, was ignorant or dishonest. I had posted at least 1 rational argument in the forum prior to that poll.

NoZed Avenger

22nd January 2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I'll address your points; I hope you'll address my question, too.

I thank you for the more direct response to my post. In answer to your question, I did not take any notes at the convention. Not only did I not bring a pen or paper to the lectures on Saturday, but I was largely tired of the whole cold-reading thing before then.

Mr. Rowland correctly got a question concerning a medical condition for someone that I know, but the rest was largely extrapolations from that. He got the name "Marie" (unrelated) and a few scattered hits. He had more luck with one or two other people, but as I know the process, I really didn't follow it with as much interest.

That said, his book is still probably the best geberal reference on the subject available today -- I own 6 other books, and while some of them cover points not really covered in his, his overview of the process is first rate.

There's one difference. The sitter didn't know you had access to her name.

We disagree on a large number of your assumption in the rsst of the post, I am afraid. Since both of us are tired of the subject, we can just disagree, but she knew I had her name or at least her first name, but I did not have her middle name.

The 'twin' bit was completely cold, and just lucky. I could get just as lucky with 3000 people in the audience -- and in fact, I think that the odds would be even better for me with that many people just waiting to validate my reading.

JE doesn't have that opportunity in his crowds.

JE has that opportunity on his show and with private readings; almost any medium/psychic has that opportunity.

N/A

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 08:35 PM

Posted by NoZed Avenger

In answer to your question...
Thank you for the added detail. You're right, I'm tired of debating cold reading, too (but, no, I'm not tired of seeing demonstrations of it or reading details of them. Not at all, where that's concerned).
He had more luck with one or two other people, but as I know the process, I really didn't follow it with as much interest.
That surprises me, really. But...my loss, because it looks like no one else who posts here did either.

That said, his book is still probably the best general reference on the subject available today -- I own 6 other books, and while some of them cover points not really covered in his, his overview of the process is first rate.
No argument from me on that. I don't often pay $55 + shipping (from UK) for a self published paperback, but I feel this one is definitely worth it.

We disagree on a large number of your assumption in the rsst of the post, I am afraid. Since both of us are tired of the subject, we can just disagree,
Great. Thanks.
...but she knew I had her name or at least her first name, but I did not have her middle name.

The 'twin' bit was completely cold, and just lucky. I could get just as lucky with 3000 people in the audience -- and in fact, I think that the odds would be even better for me with that many people just waiting to validate my reading.
Well, I understand your confidence since you had such success the first time out. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if "lightning would strike twice" so to speak...if you could really keep it up. (Too bad you don't have that grant....)
JE has that opportunity on his show and with private readings; almost any medium/psychic has that opportunity.

Yes, that's why one needs to rule out the information mediums can get like that. (Note to tbk: That's ONE, but it's all I'm posting. I'll send you the book....:) )

Clancie

22nd January 2004, 08:48 PM

Posted by Garrette

Was it you or Neo (I honestly do not remember which) who spoke of being at a JE seminar when he read someone else but you were certain it was meant for you. You (or Neo) just couldn't get JE's attention.
It was neo.

And I'd have to know the circumstances of a "me, too" to decide if it worked for someone or not. I thought neo's was good...and she had a prior connection to the person JE was reading as well.

Since you (or Neo) are willing to credit JE and the spirits with a good reading even when the person they are reading disagrees, would you object to the same latitude for TAM2?

If Ian brought through -equally specific and detailed- information for someone related to his sitter at TAM2...well, depending on the reading and circumstances...no, I probably wouldn't object to the same latitude for him (lots of "ifs" and "supposes" in that, aren't there? :) But I can't make a blanket statement about it, because I don't accept all of JE's "me toos" as convincing to me, either.

CFLarsen

23rd January 2004, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I would think with all of the knowledge you've acquired, you'd be able to lay down some objective criteria for determining a medium from a cold-reader. Can you do that?

Originally posted by Clancie
To my satisfaction, more or less, though not to yours.

"Objective" does not mean "to my satisfaction". "To my satisfaction" is "subjective".

Originally posted by Clancie
If Ian brought through -equally specific and detailed- information for someone related to his sitter at TAM2...

But this is exactly what you cannot define. You point to "objective" criteria for determining a medium from a cold reader, but you are not able to specify them.

Very weak argumentation.

thaiboxerken

23rd January 2004, 04:16 AM

Yes, that's why one needs to rule out the information mediums can get like that. (Note to tbk: That's ONE, but it's all I'm posting. I'll send you the book.... )

Yes, and how do you go about ruling it out, objectively?

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Sorry, Hoyt, but you owe Ian an apology for this one. He makes perfect sense here.

He is saying that we, the skeptical community, know about the alpha project because it was successful. Had the researchers discovered the boys, we would not have heard about it. We can never know this, of course, but it is not an altogether unreasonable assumption. Your comment does not blow a hole in Ian's argument; it reinforces it. It is because they were not detected that they are such a story in the skeptical community.

Now, have the decency to apologize to Ian.
Mercutio,

You're missing a few things here. First, is that I didn't post the second comment you attribute to me. Second, you miss the significance of your own "we can never know this, of course." That is entirely right. Ian's claim is an argumentum ad ignorantium. He is claiming to know what would have happened. He is effectively claiming to be able to predict the future.

He is also arguing against himself here. He defends parapsychologists against other scientists and skeptics and then proceeds to give us this prediction of how the parapsychologists would have behaved had they discovered the fraud. He says they would have covered it up and "file drawered" the study. Some defense, huh?

Starrman

23rd January 2004, 07:40 AM

Clancie said:
One reason I've gone for mediumship readings of my own was that some of JE's hits were so interesting and seemed inexplicable as cold reading.

Who ever said cold reading was the only explanation for these hits. How about:

1) hot reading
2) sitter not being truthfull
3) luck
4) sitter not remembering correctly

Can you really say that any one of these is less likely than someone speaking to the dead?

Sometimes I think people believe this garbage because of their lack of imagination. They can't think of another way it could be done so they swallow it whole rather than admit they just don't know.

Interesting Ian

23rd January 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Mercutio
Sorry, Hoyt, but you owe Ian an apology for this one. He makes perfect sense here.

He is saying that we, the skeptical community, know about the alpha project because it was successful. Had the researchers discovered the boys, we would not have heard about it. We can never know this, of course, but it is not an altogether unreasonable assumption. Your comment does not blow a hole in Ian's argument; it reinforces it. It is because they were not detected that they are such a story in the skeptical community.

Now, have the decency to apologize to Ian.

BillHoyt sez

You're missing a few things here. First, is that I didn't post the second comment you attribute to me. Second, you miss the significance of your own "we can never know this, of course." That is entirely right. Ian's claim is an argumentum ad ignorantium. He is claiming to know what would have happened. He is effectively claiming to be able to predict the future.

He is also arguing against himself here. He defends parapsychologists against other scientists and skeptics and then proceeds to give us this prediction of how the parapsychologists would have behaved had they discovered the fraud. He says they would have covered it up and "file drawered" the study. Some defense, huh?

If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops :rolleyes:. And even if they had it is implausible that the skeptical community would have banged on about how they tried to fool parapsychologists but dismally failed! ;)

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops :rolleyes:. And even if they had it is implausible that the skeptical community would have banged on about how they tried to fool parapsychologists but dismally failed! ;)
Ian,

Who cares what you scarcely think. That you scarcely think is abundantly obvious. Read Hansen's The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research paper on deception in parapsychology (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/DeceptionFraudTrickeryParapsychology.html) Then read his references, including papers on psi researcher-discovered fraud.

That you would try to beat skeptics over the head by telling us of the ethical deficiencies of some or many of, and by impugning the motives of nearly all psi researchers is a psichedelic trip. Welcome to our side of the argument anyway, and be careful of overstating our case as you just have.

wow.

T'ai Chi

23rd January 2004, 10:12 AM

Has any skeptic agreed to sit in Schwarz's chair yet?

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Has any skeptic agreed to sit in Schwarz's chair yet?

Under the conditions he gave Randi? Where only his lab can publish or discuss the results and not the skeptic? Are you kidding?

T'ai Chi

23rd January 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Are you kidding?

No, I'm T'ai Chi. ;)

As far as I can see it, Schwartz is just unhappy with Randi's journalism (if the result is pro or con), not any other skeptics. It doesn't appear that Schwartz is outright banning skeptics, just Randi's writing of the experimental results. Perhaps Schwartz would have no problem letting other skeptics write about it? Then Randi could read their commentary and write about their commentary. :)

Anyway, here is what Schwartz said.

"Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design."

I don't agree with Schwartz on this, but this is just what he said.

So Bill, I take it that no skeptic anywhere has sat in Schwartz's chair yet? Why? It should be so easy to do.....

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

No, I'm T'ai Chi. ;)

As far as I can see it, Schwartz is just unhappy with Randi's journalism (if the result is pro or con), not any other skeptics. It doesn't appear that Schwartz is outright banning skeptics, just Randi's writing of the experimental results. Perhaps Schwartz would have no problem letting other skeptics write about it? Then Randi could read their commentary and write about their commentary. :)

Anyway, here is what Schwartz said.

"Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design."

I don't agree with Schwartz on this, but this is just what he said.

So Bill, I take it that no skeptic anywhere has sat in Schwartz's chair yet? Why? It should be so easy to do.....

Yep, I figured you hadn't been keeping up with events here. Schwartz has added new rules beyond the "only I decide if, when where and how the results get published rule." You see, the offer he extends to other skeptics is the "game show" scenario. But he added another layer before anybody could take him up on that. He must qualify each prospective contestant beforehand on matters paranormal to decide whether or not they are sufficiently intelligent to be tested.

Gee, guess what? Nobody bothered to go through his inquisition.

So now he gets to exclude anybody he wants from the test, and gets to control publication of the results.

T'ai Chi

23rd January 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Ian,
(snip)

Is there anything more recent than from the 1980's?!

If not, that would tell me that paraspychology experiments and methods are indeed improving! Or that magicians etc. are getting worse. ;)

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Is there anything more recent than from the 1980's?!

If not, that would tell me that paraspychology experiments and methods are indeed improving! Or that magicians etc. are getting worse. ;) [/B]

Really, it tells you that? The depths of your fallacious logic are astounding.

Edited to add: I also suggest glasses or increased font size on your screen. The paper cited is from 1990.

CFLarsen

23rd January 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, I'm T'ai Chi. ;)

No, you're Whodini.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As far as I can see it, Schwartz is just unhappy with Randi's journalism (if the result is pro or con), not any other skeptics. It doesn't appear that Schwartz is outright banning skeptics, just Randi's writing of the experimental results. Perhaps Schwartz would have no problem letting other skeptics write about it? Then Randi could read their commentary and write about their commentary. :)

Me thinks you are confusing journalism with facts. If Randi had gone and butchered Schwartz' data unfairly, it would have been a major coup for Schwartz to have pointed this out, while referred to the data.

However, Schwartz chose to reject Randi's analysis, before Randi had even looked at the data.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
(Schwartz:) "Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design."

"Respect"? Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So Bill, I take it that no skeptic anywhere has sat in Schwartz's chair yet? Why? It should be so easy to do.....

What, exactly, do you mean by "sitting in Schwartz' chair"? Do you mean conduct an experiment like Schwartz'?

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Respect"? Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.

Or following Ian's noble suggestion, perhaps he conducted the experiment, it failed, and he decided not to publish it. "If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops ."

Ian, would you care now to argue against yourself? Use one of your many sock puppets to keep it interesting.

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 11:20 AM

Can't you just hear the jaws of Ian's fallacious logic trap snapping? If you think about his claim, and walk it through the "why didn't Schwartz improve the controls and re-test" question, Ian's assertion gives a very unkind conclusion.

Lucianarchy

23rd January 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Really?

Which cold reader has turned Schwartz down?

All of them by default, for not accepting the research chair challenge put out by GS.

Can you point out why Schwartz' experiments were scientifically solid?

Irrelevant. If the experiments are leaky, then there's more chance of a CR tapping them.

CFLarsen

23rd January 2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
All of them by default, for not accepting the research chair challenge put out by GS.

Whoa, just a second. What "challenge"??

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Irrelevant. If the experiments are leaky, then there's more chance of a CR tapping them.

It is "irrelevant" whether an experiment claiming to be scientific, actually is? Do you realise how stupid an argument that is?

thaiboxerken

23rd January 2004, 01:08 PM

GS has a stunt out there challenging skeptical cold-readers to outperform mediums. Schwartz is basically shifting the burden of evidence to the skeptics AND he's controlling allt he cards of his challenge. GS is a fool.

T'ai Chi

23rd January 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, you're Whodini.

Cantata,

Does my current account read "Whodini" or "T'ai Chi"? Let us know...

I leave it up to you to again focus on a user instead of the issue of Schwartz and cold reading. :D

Me thinks you are confusing journalism with facts. If Randi had gone and butchered Schwartz' data unfairly, it would have been a major coup for Schwartz to have pointed this out, while referred to the data.

I just pasted what Schwartz said on the issue.

Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.

Schwartz said that he implemented at least some of Randi's suggestions. That isn't "ignore all of them" as you claim.

This is what Schwartz said on the issue. It can be found by doing a Google search for "Schwartz" and "Randi", and is on the first page of results:
(bold added by me)

"We came to Randi to get his suggestions about our planned multi-center, double-blind experiment. Randi made some suggestions which we have incorporated in the design. For example, Randi likes the idea of having sitters guess which is their reading (a binary, yes-no decision). We prefer having every item scored, for hits and misses. We told Randi we would add his scoring request even though we consider it to be less precise.
...
Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi's suggestions."

What, exactly, do you mean by "sitting in Schwartz' chair"? Do you mean conduct an experiment like Schwartz'?

I think it is more along the lines of skeptics make comments that so and so is happening, then Schwartz says no that is not the case, etc., but the skeptics still say yes it is, and cold readers could take advantage of it, etc. Schwartz then says yeah, well prove it if it is so easy. It should be easy, right? ...

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Schwartz said that he implemented at least some of Randi's suggestions. That isn't "ignore all of them" as you claim.

This is what Schwartz said on the issue. It can be found by doing a Google search for "Schwartz" and "Randi", and is on the first page of results:
(bold added by me)

"We came to Randi to get his suggestions about our planned multi-center, double-blind experiment. [b]Randi made some suggestions which we have incorporated in the design. For example, Randi likes the idea of having sitters guess which is their reading (a binary, yes-no decision). We prefer having every item scored, for hits and misses. We told Randi we would add his scoring request even though we consider it to be less precise.
...
Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi's suggestions."

Uh, no. Schwartz did not implement Randi's suggestion. He merged it into his study design, diluting the effects of what Randi suggested. That is not the same. Randi said to abandon the vagaries of the old scoring system and to substitute a binary approach. Schwartz tries to combine them. No deal. It lets in exactly the sitter bias Randi's suggestion aimed to remove.

Care to try again?

I think it is more along the lines of skeptics make comments that so and so is happening, then Schwartz says no that is not the case, etc., but the skeptics still say yes it is, and cold readers could take advantage of it, etc. Schwartz then says yeah, well prove it if it is so easy. It should be easy, right? ...

Yes, the skeptic test would be easy. If Schwartz did not demand that he has the right to remove candidates at the outset. If Schwartz did not stipulate that the sitting skeptic can't publish the results in any way shape or form. The setup is transparent: He can remove anybody he thinks may be able to perform well at the beginning. Then he gets the opportunity to eliminate data at the back end of the study. And no participant can blow the whistle because they've signed the keep-your-mouth-shut agreement.

Care to try again?

T'ai Chi

23rd January 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Uh, no. Schwartz did not implement Randi's suggestion. He merged it into his study design, diluting the effects of what Randi suggested. That is not the same.

Ok. He just "merged" it, he didn't implement it.

Yes, the skeptic test would be easy.

Blinding could easily be done (and yes, triple blind does make sense and is a common term, despite peoples' protest otherwise), so where are the skeptics? Shouldn't they be lining up to show how easy it is and how flawed Schwartz's design/etc. supposedly is?

So what are you waiting for? I think I know...

NoZed Avenger

23rd January 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

So what are you waiting for? I think I know... [/B]

So before anyone can come to an opinion regarding any protocals, we have to become cold readers and haggle with Schwartz?

May I have a grant to put my life on hold?

N/A

PS Garrette did attempt to accept the offer -- I think his last message indicated that he had not received a reply from Dr. Schwartz, but as Garrette will not be available for a bit, there may be a delay, anyway.

thaiboxerken

23rd January 2004, 05:20 PM

Considering that Schwartz doesn't release the raw data of his experiments for scientific review, his credibility is questionable at best. It's my opinion that Schwartz would cheat in his challenge, and he suspects that the skeptics know it.

thaiboxerken

23rd January 2004, 05:23 PM

Shouldn't they be lining up to show how easy it is and how flawed Schwartz's design/etc. supposedly is?

No need to. Schwartz has a claim, it's up to him to provide the evidence. With GS's challenge, he is simply trying to shift the burden of evidence upon the skeptics. If GS had real evidence of mediumship, it would withstand scientific scrutiny AND his results should be replicable by other scientists.

Interesting Ian

23rd January 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops . And even if they had it is implausible that the skeptical community would have banged on about how they tried to fool parapsychologists but dismally failed!

Billy Bean

Who cares what you scarcely think.

Oh right. They would have shouted it from the rooftops then? Silly me for thinking otherwise.

That you scarcely think is abundantly obvious. Read Hansen's The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research paper on deception in parapsychology Then read his references, including papers on psi researcher-discovered fraud.

Ummm . .impressive non-sequitur! :eek: I'm sure this is all vewry interesting Billy, but it has s*d all to do with what we're discussing ;)

You know I find it quite amazing. You're the one who keeps banging on about informal logical fallacies, yet :

[list=a]
You continually commit them yourself
And you continually falsely accuse others of committing them!
[/list=a]

Not impressive I'm afraid BillyBean :(

That you would try to beat skeptics over the head by telling us of the ethical deficiencies of some or many of, and by impugning the motives of nearly all psi researchers is a psichedelic trip. Welcome to our side of the argument anyway, and be careful of overstating our case as you just have.

Is the above supposed to make any remotest sense?? :confused: Anyone help me here?

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh right. They would have shouted it from the rooftops then? Silly me for thinking otherwise.

Ummm . .impressive non-sequitur! :eek: I'm sure this is all vewry interesting Billy, but it has s*d all to do with what we're discussing ;)
Ian,

This is your usual ploy after making a mockery of yourself. Let me break down for you: you claimed that parapsychologists would never have published when they discovered fraud in their test subjects. I cited a paper discussing this very subject. Of course, you read it, right? Sure you did.
You know I find it quite amazing. You're the one who keeps banging on about informal logical fallacies, yet :

[list=a]
You continually commit them yourself
And you continually falsely accuse others of committing them!
[/list=a]

Not impressive I'm afraid BillyBean :(
Well, let's see. You don't read the paper I cited. You assert it is a non-sequitur. Then you bounce from your incorrect instance to this hasty generalization. Man, your 0 for what... a thousand. Have another drink.
Is the above supposed to make any remotest sense?? :confused: Anyone help me here?
Your aldehyde levels are too high. Sleep it off.

If and when, Ian, you are ever prepared to truly discuss something and to cease this ranting and raving about how much bigger your pea brain is than anybody else's here at JREF, I'm ready to discuss issues such as the incredible hole you dug for yourself with this crap. Meanwhile, get a book on logic and be sure to read it while sober.

Interesting Ian

23rd January 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Respect"? Why did Schwartz agree that Randi had excellent points about the experimental design, but chose to ignore all of them? Because Schwartz knew, that if he included Randi's suggestions, the mediums would fail.

BillyBean
Or following Ian's noble suggestion, perhaps he conducted the experiment, it failed, and he decided not to publish it. "If the parapsychologists had discovered the conjurers I scarcely think they would have bothered shouting it from the rooftops ."

WOW!! Do you have no integrity whatsoever?? :confused: I have no idea if Schwartz is not publishing negative results. If he isn't, that clearly shows he is not being honest and should not be taken seriously. I have no hesitation in stating that.

I was talking about the scenario where people are discovered to be cheating. If people are cheating the results are clearly worthless. Presumably therefore such results should be discarded? Yes? I can't understand your problem here. Please tell me Bill, if people are discovered cheating then what should we do with the data? You're opposed to discarding it, so what should we do with such results???

Interesting Ian

23rd January 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Ian,

This is your usual ploy after making a mockery of yourself. Let me break down for you: you claimed that parapsychologists would never have published when they discovered fraud in their test subjects.

Not at all. They should mention it. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't imagine they'd make a song and dance about it. You know, sort of along the lines "ha ha ha, the skeptics tried to fool us, but they failed! :D". I imagine they would simply take note of the fact, learn from the experience, and move on.

Interesting Ian

You know I find it quite amazing. You're the one who keeps banging on about informal logical fallacies, yet :

1. You continually commit them yourself
2. And you continually falsely accuse others of committing them!

Not impressive I'm afraid BillyBean

BillyBean
Well, let's see. You don't read the paper I cited.

I didn't, I'm well aware of fraud in parapsychological research. More pertinently, it's wholly irrelevant to our discussion. Of course it's interesting in its own right. I have no hesitation in admitting it's very difficult indeed to come to a definitive decision that something anomalous is going on. I think this is absolutely clear and it's something I absolutely wouldn't deny.

You assert it is a non-sequitur.

Yes that's right! WOW, please don't dazzle me with your awesome comprehension ability!! :D

Then you bounce from your incorrect instance to this hasty generalization. Man, your 0 for what... a thousand. Have another drink.

Hmmm . . I've made a hasty generalisation?? I am truly mortified :( But tell me so I can learn. What is this hasty generalisation I made?

Is the above supposed to make any remotest sense?? Anyone help me here?

Your aldehyde levels are too high. Sleep it off.

OK, anyone help me? What on earth was Billy talking about?

Interesting Ian

23rd January 2004, 06:12 PM

Oh yes, and I admit I am drunk. Just got in from a nightclub and I've had about 9 pints. But I can still outargue you Billy me boy! ;) LOL

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

WOW!! Do you have no integrity whatsoever?? :confused: I have no idea if Schwartz is not publishing negative results. If he isn't, that clearly shows he is not being honest and should not be taken seriously. I have no hesitation in stating that.

I was talking about the scenario where people are discovered to be cheating. If people are cheating the results are clearly worthless. Presumably therefore such results should be discarded? Yes? I can't understand your problem here. Please tell me Bill, if people are discovered cheating then what should we do with the data? You're opposed to discarding it, so what should we do with such results???
Ian,

How about you set this aside for a time when you are neither drunk nor hung over, eh? Then you might be able to follow the logic. You asserted that you scarcely think the discovery of cheaters would ever be published. Now we have a case of a parapsychologist who published positive results on JE, was roundly criticized for having so many holes in his methods and was given specific suggestions to repeat tightened testing of JE. Now, Ian, what happens if he finds JE fails? The dilemma is yours, I'm afaid. You said you scarcely think a finding of cheating would be published. But Schwartz published glowingly of the impressive success of JE. The differences between the last test and this test would all center around eliminating the possibility of JE cheating or of sitter bias. Schwartz would have to conclude that one of those things must have happened in his previous studies. But Ian's logic says such a revelation would scarcely happen. Ian's logic, in fact, would lead to the conclusion that these psi studies run in waves. Something looks hot for a while, then the big oops discovery happens, and nothing more is heard on the topic.

Welcome to our side, Ian!

BillHoyt

23rd January 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not at all. They should mention it. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't imagine they'd make a song and dance about it. You know, sort of along the lines "ha ha ha, the skeptics tried to fool us, but they failed! :D". I imagine they would simply take note of the fact, learn from the experience, and move on.
No, Ian, here is what you said:
"note that if the conjurors had have been detected we would never have heard of it! '

We would never have heard of it. That means they would never have published detected frauds or hoaxes. By this logic, then, Ian, if Schwartz finds out JE is simply a "conjuror," we would never hear of it. Now in the above post, you're actually advocating burying the data. "They should mention it" defies all research ethics normally followed by scientists. If a scientist uncovers trip-up points that can jeopardize experiments, the normal procedure is to publish a cautionary paper so that this information can be spread throughout the community. In the case of these so-called star psi guys, I fail to see why they should simply and lamely "mention it." Where, at a noisy bath house? While sailing with friends? No, they publish. Moreover, if they have had the misfortune to have published one study claiming a so-called star psi guy really can lift snotballs off tissues with only his mind and then discover they had been duped, it is imperative that they publish the research that retracts the previous results. This is normal procedure amongst those honestly trying to uncover truth.

"They should mention it." How lamely disingenuous can you get?

Interesting Ian

23rd January 2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]
Ian,

How about you set this aside for a time when you are neither drunk nor hung over, eh?

Why? It's scarcely going to improve your idiocy now is it? ;)

To be perfectly serious though, I think it is clear that you are simply making a fool of yourself. Whether I am sober or drunk will not alter that fact BillyBean ;)

Then you might be able to follow the logic.

BillyBean, in the past 20 months I have been conversing with you on here, I have never known you to display any consistent logic. Are you to expect me to believe that things are about to miraculously change??? :eek: LOL

You asserted that you scarcely think the discovery of cheaters would ever be published.

I did not state that. I said that no doubt it would be noted, but that they would not shout about it from the roof tops. Do you understand the difference BillyBeany Poos?

Now we have a case of a parapsychologist who published positive results on JE, was roundly criticized for having so many holes in his methods and was given specific suggestions to repeat tightened testing of JE. Now, Ian, what happens if he finds JE fails?

Well then he fails :) Quite honestly though I really don't have much interest in JE Billy Poos. It certainly wouldn't effect my belief in an afterlife one iota :)

The dilemma is yours, I'm afaid.

You really are a laugh a minute aren't you? :) I'd never heard of JE, or Sylvia Brown, or these other guys you skeptics keep hysterically ranting about until I came on this board. Yet you expect me to abandon my belief in survival should these guys get exposed as frauds! :rolleyes: Do you have any notion whatsover how stupid you sound?? :eek:

You keep banging on about Schwartz and JE for the rest of your post. I cannot address this issue because I have never seen JE perform, nor any of the other mediums that skeptics love to discuss. I've only heard about the mediums that books discuss. I have a life long interest in the paranormal and the question of whether we survive the death of our bodies. I have read many many books. Yet, before coming on here, I have never heard of any one of these mediums that skeptics hysterically rant on about. Yes that's right. You heard correctly. Maybe it's because I'm from the UK. That and the fact I have little interest in that which other people find so engrossing. The point is I do not know anything about JE and SB, and the other guy. Nor have I any interest. Nor am I interested whether they get exposed as frauds. Hey!! Am I getting though to you yet??

T'ai Chi

23rd January 2004, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

(snip)

Can you give us any more recent examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychology?

All of your examples (from what you cited) were from the 1980's.

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

So before anyone can come to an opinion regarding any protocals, we have to become cold readers and haggle with Schwartz?

Well certainly people can have opinions on something, but don't expect your opinions to be taken too seriously if you are a cold-reading skeptic who keeps claiming that it is so easy or so flawed, but yet doesn't want to 'sit in the chair'.

May I have a grant to put my life on hold?

The people who get challenged for the million dollar challenge could say the same thing. Yes, they might have the million, but if you beat Schwartz's design, you'd also probably have a career booster.

PS Garrette did attempt to accept the offer -- I think his last message indicated that he had not received a reply from Dr. Schwartz, but as Garrette will not be available for a bit, there may be a delay, anyway.

Garrette are you reading this? What has been done up to date?

Garrette

24th January 2004, 01:47 AM

NoZed is correct.

I e-mailed Schwartz offering to be tested under the same conditions he tested JE. I did this after Steve Grenard said he had already spoken with Schwartz about it and Schwartz (according to Steve) was receptive.

I have not heard back. I will e-mail again at some point.

CFLarsen

24th January 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I leave it up to you to again focus on a user instead of the issue of Schwartz and cold reading. :D

I leave it up to you to again not refer to your user ID, then.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I just pasted what Schwartz said on the issue.

And? You have no opinion of it?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Schwartz said that he implemented at least some of Randi's suggestions. That isn't "ignore all of them" as you claim.

This is what Schwartz said on the issue. It can be found by doing a Google search for "Schwartz" and "Randi", and is on the first page of results:
(bold added by me)

"We came to Randi to get his suggestions about our planned multi-center, double-blind experiment. Randi made some suggestions which we have incorporated in the design. For example, Randi likes the idea of having sitters guess which is their reading (a binary, yes-no decision). We prefer having every item scored, for hits and misses. We told Randi we would add his scoring request even though we consider it to be less precise.
...
Our multi-center, double-blind procedure has been approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona, and we are pilot testing it right now. It includes Randi's suggestions."

I refer you to page 164 in "The Afterlife Experiments". Here, Pat Price is read by John Edward. He asks repeatedly "Do you understand that?", which is perhaps the oldest trick in the cold reading book.

You can also find examples of this on pages 85-105 (George Anderson).

Often, the "yes/no" questions are so vague and cover such a wide area that it would be very difficult not to answer "yes".

That is not a true binary test. That is rigging the results.

Ergo, Schwartz did not include that suggestion from Randi. If you can find other suggestions that Randi made, and that Schwartz used, you are most welcome to tell us. Not just claimed to use, but actually used.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it is more along the lines of skeptics make comments that so and so is happening, then Schwartz says no that is not the case, etc., but the skeptics still say yes it is, and cold readers could take advantage of it, etc. Schwartz then says yeah, well prove it if it is so easy. It should be easy, right? ...

Yes, it is. You can simply read the various walk-throughs of transcripts here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jvplkl.htm). And here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jelkl.htm). And here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/sblkl.htm).

However, Schwartz is the one making the claim, so he must provide positive evidence. You know that.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Can you give us any more recent examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychology?

I can. I posted an example just before Xmas. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32848)

I have others, if you want them.

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
So before anyone can come to an opinion regarding any protocals, we have to become cold readers and haggle with Schwartz?

This is the same lame argument I have heard from astrologers: We have to study for decades, before they will even begin discussing astrology with us.

It's simply a feeble attempt of making those darn questions go away.

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
NoZed is correct.

I e-mailed Schwartz offering to be tested under the same conditions he tested JE. I did this after Steve Grenard said he had already spoken with Schwartz about it and Schwartz (according to Steve) was receptive.

I have not heard back. I will e-mail again at some point.
Garrette,

For the record, what was the date of your e-mail to Schwartz?

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Can you give us any more recent examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychology?

All of your examples (from what you cited) were from the 1980's.

Since you imply that things have changed since the 80s, let us move forward into the 90s.

“In fact, the formal tests were vulnerable to cheating in many ways. This and other problems have not been previously recognized. The technical shortcomings of the research are symptomatic of deeper difficulties. A few prominent parapsychologists are vocally promoting research involving known tricksters. These advocates have been aggressive in publishing their articles in professional forums, but they have no knowledge of conjuring. Several have trained many students and have thereby bequeathed a legacy of ignorance about magic.”1

So, as of 1992, some prominent parapsychologists vocally promote research with known, fradulent subjects. Not simply being tricked by tricksters, mind you, but utterly ignoring the fact they have already been detected as frauds, and promoting their continued use in research. More pointedly, these deluded researchers were training, as of 1992, the next generation of researchers. So let's move forward some years and see if things have changed.

This time, we will hear from a decidedly non-skeptical author. In this otherwise pro-postmodernist, anti-skeptical, we find the author beginning his concluding paragraph with this startling admission:

“In the final analysis what fairly can be said of parapsychology? As far as spontaneous cases are concerned it seems likely that there are numerous instances ofself-deception, delusion, and even fraud. Some of the empirical literature like-wise might be attributable to shoddy experimental procedures and to fraudulent manipulation of data.”

So as of 1999, this parapsychologist continues to describe both hoaxsters being investigated by parapsychologists as if the hoaxes are real and directly fraudulent manipulation of the data by the researchers themselves.

Of course, that was 1999. Things have changed greatly since then. :rolleyes:
______
1Hansen, George P, THE RESEARCH WITH B.D. AND THE LEGACY OF MAGICAL IGNORANCE. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, December 1992.

2Irwin, HJ. “An Introduction to Parapsychology. Mcfarland, 1999.
on-line (www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/ irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf)

Mercutio

24th January 2004, 06:51 AM

Hoyt, the link in your last post does not work for me. If I can't find it by googling, can you fix your link or PM me the site?

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

quoting Hansen
“In fact, the formal tests were vulnerable to cheating in many ways. This and other problems have not been previously recognized.

An important question here is do non-skeptics agree with him?

quoting Hansen
The technical shortcomings of the research are symptomatic of deeper difficulties. A few prominent parapsychologists are vocally promoting research involving known tricksters. These advocates have been aggressive in publishing their articles in professional forums, but they have no knowledge of conjuring. Several have trained many students and have thereby bequeathed a legacy of ignorance about magic.”1

Prominant parapsychologists actually want to involve known tricksters? So why do they want to do this Billy? I'm not denying that they may want to, I'm just wondering why they want to. I could email them to ask them, but unfortunately you've neglected to mention their names. Could you rectify this error?

Thank you.

Billy
So, as of 1992, some prominent parapsychologists vocally promote research with known, fradulent subjects. Not simply being tricked by tricksters, mind you, but utterly ignoring the fact they have already been detected as frauds, and promoting their continued use in research.

Right, so you're saying they want to use tricksters in order to get positive results? :eek: WOW!! that's quite an accusation Billy! Does Hansen himself also believe this? Hmmmm . .why not just directly covertly manipulate the results rather than shouting to the world they intend to manipulate the results?? Come on Billy bean, give me their names.

This time, we will hear from a decidedly non-skeptical author. In this otherwise pro-postmodernist, anti-skeptical, we find the author beginning his concluding paragraph with this startling admission:

“In the final analysis what fairly can be said of parapsychology? As far as spontaneous cases are concerned it seems likely that there are numerous instances ofself-deception, delusion, and even fraud. Some of the empirical literature like-wise might be attributable to shoddy experimental procedures and to fraudulent manipulation of data.”

This paragraph is absolutely fine LOL We all know this. What are you trying to prove? I acknowledge the foregoing but am convinced of the reality of some paranormal phenomena.

So H.J. Irwin is anti-skeptical and a pro-postmodernist? Can you substantiate this? I honestly don't know if he is or not. Hmmmm . . pity dharlow isn't around. He'd know.

So as of 1999, this parapsychologist continues to describe both hoaxsters being investigated by parapsychologists as if the hoaxes are real and directly fraudulent manipulation of the data by the researchers themselves.

Yeah, it's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will try to fraudulently manipulate data whatever area of science we're talking about. This is why parapsychology employs tighter experimental protocols than in any other area of science.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Hoyt, the link in your last post does not work for me. If I can't find it by googling, can you fix your link or PM me the site?

Chapters 1 6 12 and 17 are available of that book online. Incidentally this is one of the 3 books that dharlow recommended a few weeks back

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter1.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter6.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter12.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Chapters 1 6 12 and 17 are available of that book online. Incidentally this is one of the 3 books that dharlow recommended a few weeks back

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter1.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter6.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter12.pdf
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf

This is of relevance from Ch 17

One other feature of a genuine science should be mentioned, distasteful
though it is. Occasionally professional scientists break the rules of the game
and have to be expelled from the Þeld. Such an incident arose in parapsychology
with the Levy aÝair in Á974 (McConnell, Á987, Ch. ÁÁ; Rhine, Á974, Á975).
Dr. W. J. Levy had worked in RhineÕs laboratory for a few years and was interested
primarily in psi research with animals (anpsi). In Á974 some students
observed Levy tinkering with the automatic recording apparatus being used
in one of the laboratoryÕs anpsi experiments. Secret recordings of the data
were arranged and on comparison with LevyÕs reported results, discrepancies
were found. When confronted by Rhine, Levy acknowledged his fraudulent
activity and was dismissed. Parapsychologists known to be planning to use any
of LevyÕs published work in their papers immediately were advised not to do
so. Rhine (Á974) published a statement in the Journal of Parapsychology giving
the details of the aÝair and advising that all of LevyÕs publications should now
be regarded as unacceptable (although Levy claimed he resorted to fraudulent
manipulation only when his recent experiments yielded nonsigniÞcant data).
In the Levy case parapsychology was shown to be capable of keeping its house
in order and not to be inclined to cover up indiscretions for appearanceÕs sake".

Hmmm . .the text has come out weird. Anyway, it's the last link I provided on page 310 in that link.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 08:01 AM

In Ch 17 Irwin states:

That some parapsychologists have sometimes cheated is undeniable. What
is equivocal is the notion that all parapsychological research is fraudulent, or
indeed that there is any justiÞcation in NeherÕs (Á980, p. Á42) assertion of an
unusually high incidence of fraud in this Þeld. Fraud occurs in all branches of
science (Broad & Wade, Á982; Kohn, Á987; St. James-Roberts, Á976).
That parapsychology has relatively more frequent cases of experimenter
fraud than does psychology is an impression based in part on diÝerent modal
reactions to such fraud between the two disciplines. When parapsychologists
identify an instance of fraud it is given extensive publicity, such is their
determination to maintain the integrity of the discipline; indeed the only
reason Hansel (Á966) was able to cite some attested instances of fraud in ESPexperiments was that parapsychologists themselves had published detailed
reports of these instances.
On the other hand there is a much stronger tendency among psychologists
to turn a blind eye to fraud in their Þeld, the posthumous exposure of
BurtÕs purported deception notwithstanding (Hearnshaw, Á979); their assumption
seems to be that the experiment probably would have turned out in the
reported manner anyway, so readers are not really being misled (Broad & Wade,
Á982, p. 80). In parapsychology there is much eÝort directed too to the replication
of experimental Þndings and this can assist in the identiÞcation of fraudulent
practice. Much less interest in experimental replication is shown by
psychologists: if the data are theoretically or intuitively plausible academic psychologists
today rarely bother with simple replications, if only for the reason
that psychology journals generally will not publish a report of such a study.
Without routine experimental replications there is no safeguard against experimenter
fraud; most exposures of fraud in the orthodox sciences consequently
have come through personal disclosure (Broad & Wade, Á982, p. 73). In short,
the argument of frequent fraud in parapsychology seems more politically than
evidentially founded.
(page 312 on this (http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf) webpage.

What do you say to that Billy Bean?? ;)

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 08:13 AM

"A majority of parapsychologists now appreciate the point that in designing
some of their experiments the professional advice of a magician could be
helpful, and indeed many parapsychologists have sought consultations of this
sort (Hansen, Á985, Á990). Nevertheless the skepticsÕ generalized slur upon
parapsychologistsÕ professional competence still rankles. The issue became
acute with RandiÕs (Á983a,b) so-called Project Alpha in which Randi, a professional
stage magician, arranged for two young conjurers to present themselves
as psychics at a parapsychological laboratory (Shaw, Á996). According to
Randi the parapsychologists were deceived eÝectively by the young men during
a series of supposedly controlled experiments. The parapsychologists themselves
declared that the conjurers had not been successful in tightly controlled
experiments; it was acknowledged however, that in some exploratory studies
fraudulent performances had been taken by the research team as Òencouraging
Ó results and had been reported as such in unrefereed conference research
briefs.

Well this is not the impression I was getting from skeptics earlier on! Apparently the conjurers had not been successful in tightly controlled experiments. They'd simply been taken as encouraging results in an unrefereed conference research brief.

Now do people understand why I don't take what skeptics say at face value? When you actually investigate their claims one tends to invariably discover that they have either exaggerated or simply told flat out lies!

Irwin goes on to say:

Much of the subsequent debate over RandiÕs hoax has concerned the ethics
of the procedure (Thalbourne, Á995b; Truzzi, Á987), although it must be
remembered that Randi is a showman and thereby he is not bound by the
professional ethics of scientists. Project Alpha has been constructive in reminding
parapsychologists that they need to be especially wary in working with people
who volunteer themselves as Òpsychics.Ó On the other hand the hoax certainly
did not show parapsychologists as a group to be incompetent in research.
From the perspective of the sociology of science Project Alpha is noteworthy
in instancing one form of skepticsÕ attempts to ÒdebunkÓ parapsychological
research. (emphasis added)

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 08:31 AM

Some critics (e.g., Hyman, Á980) have argued for the need to respond to
parapsychology in a sober and proper manner, but nonetheless a common tactic
of skeptics is the use of ridicule. Parapsychological phenomena are derided
as nonsensical and primitive folk beliefs and parapsychological research is
belittled as occultism in pseudoscientiÞc garb. This approach especially is characteristic
of the Committee for the ScientiÞc Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal (CSICOP). CSICOP is a group of scientists and other people originally
founded to examine objectively the evidence for paranormal phenomena (Frazier,
Á996), but it has maintained an inßexible stance against research into the
paranormal (Hansen, Á992), some of its aàliates even resorting to deception
in experimental reports (Pinch & Collins, Á984); many of its more evenhanded
members consequently have resigned.
Articles published in the Humanist and in CSICOPÕS own periodical the
Skeptical Inquirer (see Frazier, Á98Á, Á986, Á99Á) amalgamate parapsychological
research with astrology, vampires, UFOs, pyramid power, numerology, the
Bermuda triangle, witchcraft, the Tarot, the Abominable Snowman and the
like, encouraging an impression of parapsychologyÕs guilt by association.

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf Page 313

And might I add this is also what all the skeptics do on this board. Which begs the question how seriously can we take anything they say?? :confused:

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
An important question here is do non-skeptics agree with him?
This paper was reviewed by parapsychologists. The job of a reviewer, one would hope even in this sullied field, is to call out unreasonable and unfounded assertions. It was written by Hansen, who worked in parapsychology labs for eight years.

Prominant parapsychologists actually want to involve known tricksters? So why do they want to do this Billy? I'm not denying that they may want to, I'm just wondering why they want to. I could email them to ask them, but unfortunately you've neglected to mention their names. Could you rectify this error?

Thank you.
Well, you could easily have dug this up yourself, had you read the article and followed its trail of references. Be that as it may:

"The early Society for Psychical Research (SPR) instituted a policy of refusing to work with psychics and mediums who were known to have engaged in deceptive activity. Recently, Inglis (1984) has vehemently and
bitterly denounced that policy, and a number of people seem to agree with him (e.g., Braude, 1986; Gregory, 1982). Several leaders of the field seem to agree. Beloff (1985) has pleaded with the skeptics to examine the Palladino mediumship. He has stated that Glenn Falkenstein deserves investigation (Beloff, 1984a). (Falkenstein is a well-known mentalist; for example, see Booth, 1984.) Presently Beloff (1988) is promoting the Margery mediumship. Recently Azuma and Stevenson (1987) have advocated further study of the notorious psychic surgeons.

This greater willingness to study (alleged) psychic functioning of reported frauds was exemplified at the 1986 Parapsychological Association (PA) convention, where three papers presented work with persons previously reported to have engaged in fraudulent activity (Egely & Vertesy, 19863; Stewart, Roll, & Baumann, 19864; Warren & Don, 19865). This is not an isolated instance. As seen in the Table, every annual convention of the PA since 1980 has included papers reporting positive results from subjects who later admitted to or were reported as having used trickery at some point in their careers."1
Right, so you're saying they want to use tricksters in order to get positive results? :eek: WOW!! that's quite an accusation Billy! Does Hansen himself also believe this? Hmmmm . .why not just directly covertly manipulate the results rather than shouting to the world they intend to manipulate the results?? Come on Billy bean, give me their names.
I cleaved close to the facts, and would thank you to do the same. I could only speculate as to the motives behind advocating the continued use of known frauds. I have not engaged here in such speculation.
So H.J. Irwin is anti-skeptical and a pro-postmodernist? Can you substantiate this? I honestly don't know if he is or not. Hmmmm . . pity dharlow isn't around. He'd know.

Yeah, it's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will try to fraudulently manipulate data whatever area of science we're talking about. This is why parapsychology employs tighter experimental protocols than in any other area of science.
Okay, so you read neither the Hansen article nor the Irwin chapter. Chapter 17 (and thank you for providing the unmangled link, btw) includes passages such as this:
"In any event, a more extensive accommodation of 'feminine' values in general science, as advocated by feminists, may provide a context in which a greater variety of parapsychological studies are received as scientically legitimate. The feminization of science would in part entail the implementation of a pluralistic approach (White, 1992), that is, a recognition of the value of many different research paradigms and a rejection of the view that the laboratory experiment is the epitome of the scientiic method. White (1991, 1994) hasurged parapsychologists to join in the process of transforming contemporary science to this end. Thus parapsychology could be the first point of implementation of a significant revolution in the philosophy of science."
This was, by the way, the paragraph immediately preceding the one I quoted before. For those who don't recognize the PoMo jargon here, Irwin is wrapping up a discussion about abandoning science and embracing the postmodernist / feminist feint that claims the truth can be found by abandoning the methods of science. That is, toss out the controls. I invite those who doubt that that is what is being proposed here to begin on the previous page to see the discussion of what Irwin feels postmodernism and postmodernist philosophy of science's strong programme (not identified as such) have to offer.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This time, we will hear from a decidedly non-skeptical author. In this otherwise pro-postmodernist, anti-skeptical, we find the author beginning his concluding paragraph with this startling admission:

“In the final analysis what fairly can be said of parapsychology? As far as spontaneous cases are concerned it seems likely that there are numerous instances ofself-deception, delusion, and even fraud. Some of the empirical literature like-wise might be attributable to shoddy experimental procedures and to fraudulent manipulation of data.”

He then goes on to say:

"Be this as it may, there is sound phenomenological
evidence of parapsychological experiences and experimental evidence of anomalous
events too, and to this extent behavioral scientists ethically are obliged to
encourage the investigation of these phenomena rather than dismissing them out
of hand."

Why did you neglect to mention this Billy?

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In Ch 17 Irwin states:

What do you say to that Billy Bean?? ;)
I introduced Irwin as a hostile witness. I am aware Irwin thinks there is something real about the paranormal. This is a red herring, though, Ian, and you know it. Focus on the discussion.

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He then goes on to say:

"Be this as it may, there is sound phenomenological
evidence of parapsychological experiences and experimental evidence of anomalous
events too, and to this extent behavioral scientists ethically are obliged to
encourage the investigation of these phenomena rather than dismissing them out
of hand."

Why did you neglect to mention this Billy?
You persist in this red herring. I introduced Irwin as a hostile witness. The issue here is not Irwin's belief in the paranormal. The issue here is to address your claims about fraud in parapsychology. I introduced a skeptic on the topic of fraud and introduced a PoMo paraparapsychologist, both of whom steadfastly agree that parapsychology's reputation has been greatly sullied to the present day by both direct researcher fraud and by deceptive subjects who have tricked naive researchers. Please focus on this issue and desist from this red herring.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
An important question here is do non-skeptics agree with him?

Billy
This paper was reviewed by parapsychologists. The job of a reviewer, one would hope even in this sullied field,

Sullied? In what way is it sullied? I've just been quoting extensively from your link to Irwin's chapter who argues that this is most defintely not true. Why are you lying BillHoyt?

is to call out unreasonable and unfounded assertions. It was written by Hansen, who worked in parapsychology labs for eight years.

To be specific then, are you asserting that these parapsychologists agree that the parapsychological research of interest (and what parapsychological research are we discussing here incidentally?) was amenable to cheating in many ways? Which parapsychologists were these?

II
Prominant parapsychologists actually want to involve known tricksters? So why do they want to do this Billy? I'm not denying that they may want to, I'm just wondering why they want to. I could email them to ask them, but unfortunately you've neglected to mention their names. Could you rectify this error?

Thank you.

BillHoyt
Well, you could easily have dug this up yourself, had you read the article and followed its trail of references. Be that as it may:
"The early Society for Psychical Research (SPR) instituted a policy of refusing to work with psychics and mediums who were known to have engaged in deceptive activity.

And so they should.

Recently, Inglis (1984) has vehemently and
bitterly denounced that policy, and a number of people seem to agree with him (e.g., Braude, 1986; Gregory, 1982). Several leaders of the field seem to agree.

OK I admit I'm perplexed. Obviously I would need to read their justification for such a strange stance. Where are you getting this information from? Do you have any link to any of these people justifying their position here?

Right, so you're saying they want to use tricksters in order to get positive results? WOW!! that's quite an accusation Billy! Does Hansen himself also believe this? Hmmmm . .why not just directly covertly manipulate the results rather than shouting to the world they intend to manipulate the results?? Come on Billy bean, give me their names.

I cleaved close to the facts, and would thank you to do the same. I could only speculate as to the motives behind advocating the continued use of known frauds. I have not engaged here in such speculation.

I got the impression that this is what you were saying. But anyway, it seems that neither of us know why these people should want to use known frauds. I tend to agree with you that it seems bad. But surely it is incumbent on us to read the reasons before outright condemning? I admit though that it is difficult to see how they could justify theiur stance here. But still . . .

So H.J. Irwin is anti-skeptical and a pro-postmodernist? Can you substantiate this? I honestly don't know if he is or not. Hmmmm . . pity dharlow isn't around. He'd know.

Yeah, it's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will try to fraudulently manipulate data whatever area of science we're talking about. This is why parapsychology employs tighter experimental protocols than in any other area of science.

BillHoyt

Okay, so you read neither the Hansen article nor the Irwin chapter.

Ummm . . . well I hadn't then, but obviously I have now since I've been quoting loads of it!

BillHoyt
Chapter 17 (and thank you for providing the unmangled link, btw) includes passages such as this:
"In any event, a more extensive accommodation of ÒfeminineÓ values in general science, as advocated by feminists, may provide a context in which a greater variety of parapsychological studies are received as scientically legitimate. The feminization of science would in part entail the implementation of a pluralistic approach (White, 1992), that is, a recognition of the value of many different research paradigms and a rejection of the view that the laboratory experiment is the epitome of the scientiic method. White (1991, 1994) hasurged parapsychologists to join in the process of transforming contemporary science to this end. Thus parapsychology could be the first point of implementation of a significant revolution in the philosophy of science."

This was, by the way, the paragraph immediately preceding the one I quoted before. For those who don't recognize the PoMo jargon here, Irwin is wrapping up a discussion about abandoning science

He does no such thing! He's saying lab based science may not always be appropriate depending on what one is studying.

But anyway, I was more interested in your denial that he is not a skeptic. Can you justify this assertion?

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I introduced Irwin as a hostile witness. I am aware Irwin thinks there is something real about the paranormal.

Where has he stated this?

thaiboxerken

24th January 2004, 09:44 AM

Does dishonesty come natural to you, Ian, or do you have to work at it?

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He then goes on to say:

"Be this as it may, there is sound phenomenological
evidence of parapsychological experiences and experimental evidence of anomalous
events too, and to this extent behavioral scientists ethically are obliged to
encourage the investigation of these phenomena rather than dismissing them out
of hand."

Why did you neglect to mention this Billy?

BillHoyt
You persist in this red herring. I introduced Irwin as a hostile witness. The issue here is not Irwin's belief in the paranormal.

We have yet to establish that he does believe in the paranormal. Irwin above is simply stating cold facts. The fact there is sound evidence of anomlous events does not entail that there are in fact anomalous events.

The issue here is to address your claims about fraud in parapsychology.

I do not recall making any claims which are inconsistent with Irwin's. Perhaps you would be so good as to remind me? :rolleyes:

I introduced a skeptic on the topic of fraud and introduced a PoMo paraparapsychologist, both of whom steadfastly agree that parapsychology's reputation has been greatly sullied to the present day by both direct researcher fraud and by deceptive subjects who have tricked naive researchers.

Where does he state that parapsychology's reputation has been greatly sullied? I've read the whole chapter and nowhere does he state this. Indeed, on the contrary, he denies this!

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where has he stated this?
I cannot tell if I am the referrent here or Irwin. Either way, I can tell that you're not paying attention. I leave it to the readers to determine whether a disingenuous approach to the subject matter is the motivation.

Here is how I introduced the first Irwin passage:
"This time, we will hear from a decidedly non-skeptical author. In this otherwise pro-postmodernist, anti-skeptical [chapter], we find the author beginning his concluding paragraph with this startling admission:"
I corrected the previous word omission in the above.

Here is my aper[,c]u immediately following the quoted passage:

"So as of 1999, this parapsychologist continues to describe both hoaxsters being investigated by parapsychologists as if the hoaxes are real and directly fraudulent manipulation of the data by the researchers themselves."

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where has he stated this?

I cannot tell if I am the referrent here or Irwin.

It's very simple. I'm asking where Irwin states he believes in some aspects of the paranormal?

Either way, I can tell that you're not paying attention.

I have been paying attention. You have not substantiated your assertion that Irwin believes in the paranormal.

Here is how I introduced the first Irwin passage:
"This time, we will hear from a decidedly non-skeptical author. In this otherwise pro-postmodernist, anti-skeptical [chapter], we find the author beginning his concluding paragraph with this startling admission:"
I corrected the previous word omission in the above.

Here is my aper[,c]u immediately following the quoted passage:

"So as of 1999, this parapsychologist continues to describe both hoaxsters being investigated by parapsychologists as if the hoaxes are real and directly fraudulent manipulation of the data by the researchers themselves."TE]

Sorry, this sentence does not scan ie it's gobbledegook. And what has it got to do with you substantiating your assertion that Irwin is a believer in the paranormal??

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sullied? In what way is it sullied? I've just been quoting extensively from your link to Irwin's chapter who argues that this is most defintely not true. Why are you lying BillHoyt?
Why are you incapable of seeing what is there in plain text? Yes he says the reputation is sullied:
Perhaps the ultimate survival of parapsychological research will rest on the demise of parapsychology as a discipline. Stevenson (1988) has questioned parapsychologists' continued determination to represent their research activities as a separate field of study... For example, students with an interest in parapsychological topics would be advised to undertake graduate training in an orthodox field rather than by way of a specialist doctoral program in parapsychology. Having become established vocationally as a mainstream research scientist, the individual could then judiciously apply his or her research expertise to parapsychological issues.
See also the pages leading up to this sad, sad suggestion. Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory. Of course, Irwin takes pot-shots at skeptics including Randi, but still ends up here. Suggesting the research efforts might only be salvaged by cleansing students through real research education programs. Lest you miss it, he also makes specific mention of the improved research skills they would acquire by not being trained in parapsychology programs. In this, he echoes Hansen's criticisms about the quality of parapsychology teaching programs.
To be specific then, are you asserting that these parapsychologists agree that the parapsychological research of interest (and what parapsychological research are we discussing here incidentally?) was amenable to cheating in many ways? Which parapsychologists were these?
I'm not doing your homework for you any more, Ian. I have now pointed you to specific passages in two papers and one textbook chapter. You continue to evince you have not read them properly. If you read the citations and follow through to the other papers cited, you will see the answer to your question is yes.
I got the impression that this is what you were saying. But anyway, it seems that neither of us know why these people should want to use known frauds. I tend to agree with you that it seems bad. But surely it is incumbent on us to read the reasons before outright condemning? I admit though that it is difficult to see how they could justify theiur stance here. But still . . .
Spin some hypotheses here, Ian. Read the paper first, though.
Ummm . . . well I hadn't then, but obviously I have now since I've been quoting loads of it!
We've had ample examples of posters here at JREF who quote and then demonstrate they hadn't a clue what it was they had quoted. Ample examples of those who cherry-pick the quotes. Case in point:
He does no such thing! He's saying lab based science may not always be appropriate depending on what one is studying.

But anyway, I was more interested in your denial that he is not a skeptic. Can you justify this assertion?
Read the chapter, Ian. The section immediately follows the sad passage I quoted above. Irwin launches into a lengthy, postmodernist / feminist dissertation on the entire framework of science might need to be abandoned.

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I leave it up to you to again not refer to your user ID, then.

You should get a degree in math because you sure do like tangents.

And? You have no opinion of it?

That is irrelevant as I am talking about what Schwartz himself said, not what I think of him. I'm sure though if I posted my opinion you'd have said 'what, and we're just supposed to accept your opinion?' :D

Again, tangent.

Often, the "yes/no" questions are so vague and cover such a wide area that it would be very difficult not to answer "yes".

That is not a true binary test. That is rigging the results.

So Schwartz did use yes/no questions then? Yes or no?

Yes, it is. You can simply read the various walk-throughs of transcripts here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jvplkl.htm). And here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jelkl.htm). And here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/sblkl.htm).

A reading and analyzing of transcripts is relatively simple. A skeptic or coldreader actually sitting in the chair themselves and practicing what they preach and fooling people might take some more effort..

However, Schwartz is the one making the claim, so he must provide positive evidence. You know that.

Skeptics and coldreaders who make the claim of flawed research and it being easy to do in Schwartz setting are making a claim too. They must provide evidence, you know that. You yourself have said that "Yes, it is." Well, prove it, contact Schwartz and take the same tests as the claimed mediums did.

I can. I posted an example just before Xmas. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32848)

I can't imagine how you believe the above link to be relevant. BillHoyt posted a link (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/DeceptionBySubjects.html) to a paper of examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychological research, like in a lab setting. I'm looking for more recent examples of things of that nature as all of the examples were from the 1980's.

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Since you imply that things have changed since the 80s, let us move forward into the 90s.

Uh no I am simply asking you for evidence. I am not implying anything.

So, as of 1992, some prominent parapsychologists vocally promote research with known, fradulent subjects. Not simply being tricked by tricksters, mind you, but utterly ignoring the fact they have already been detected as frauds, and promoting their continued use in research. More pointedly, these deluded researchers were training, as of 1992, the next generation of researchers. So let's move forward some years and see if things have changed.

Specific examples...?

“In the final analysis what fairly can be said of parapsychology? As far as spontaneous cases are concerned it seems likely that there are numerous instances ofself-deception, delusion, and even fraud. Some of the empirical literature like-wise might be attributable to shoddy experimental procedures and to fraudulent manipulation of data.”

Specific examples...?

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Hoyt, the link in your last post does not work for me. If I can't find it by googling, can you fix your link or PM me the site?

Merc, remove the "%20" from the address and it works great. :)

NoZed Avenger

24th January 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Well certainly people can have opinions on something, but don't expect your opinions to be taken too seriously if you are a cold-reading skeptic who keeps claiming that it is so easy or so flawed, but yet doesn't want to 'sit in the chair'.
[/B]

Frankly, I have a hard time taking that opinion seriously. Do you actually hold that opinion, or are you just throwing out stuff to provoke responses?

Banachek did some absolutely amazing mentalism at the meeting. I am a hobbyist and have followed magic for more than 15 years now. I have numerous books, belong to 2 magic organziations, have done shows for money. I don't suck at it.

I will tell you now that not only can I not emulate one of the effects from the meeting; I still have no idea how it was done. He did it that well. By your reasoning, since I cannot emulate his performance to the same level, he obviously has spooky magic powers.

Similarly, Jamy Ian Swiss sis an ambitious card routine during the evening. I know several routines for that. While I have not put together a routine, I am familiar with the sleights involved. Even when I cannot see what happened, I can usually reconstruct it.

He either had a move that I have never come across, or did an old move so well that I could not catch him at it, even knowing what to look for. Since I cannot perform his routine, he obviously has been possessed by the devil.

And, while we're at it, why do I suspect that even if someone managed to overcome the problems with trying to follow Schwartz' protocals precisely -- problems noted by Garrette and Marc/Dogwood previosuly, among others -- you'd be one of the first in line saying "Just because it can be done with non-paranormal means doesn't mean that the psychics tested don't have real powers"?

And you know something -- it wouldn't. Any number of magicians bending spoons doesn't actually prove anything conclusive about Geller; any number of successful cold readers don't actually prove anything conclusive about any alleged mediums.

I guess -- since any 'proof' of the negative proposition put forward by the skeptics can be immediately dismissed as non-conclusive -- that its a good thing that the burden of proof remains firmly on the claimant to show that paranormal events or powers exist.

Schwartz' burden. JE's burden. Your burden. Not mine.

CFLarsen

24th January 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You should get a degree in math because you sure do like tangents.

You sure "forget" easily. Let's recap:

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Are you kidding?

To which you replied:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, I'm T'ai Chi. ;)

Tell me again: Who likes tangents?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That is irrelevant as I am talking about what Schwartz himself said, not what I think of him. I'm sure though if I posted my opinion you'd have said 'what, and we're just supposed to accept your opinion?' :D

It may be irrelevant to you, but I am asking you anyway: What do you think of what he said?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Again, tangent.

Hardly. Merely posting quotes without any comment is not a very productive way of debating. But if all you can do is repost the words of others, with no opinion of your own, gee....just say so.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So Schwartz did use yes/no questions then? Yes or no?

He used them in a way that would make his experiment a success. That is not a true binary test. In a binary test, the questions must give an unambiguous choice: A clear yes or no. Asking "Do you understand that", and getting a "yes" is not the same as asking a binary question about a specific subject that can be answered with a clear yes or no.

Have you read the pages in Schwartz' book I referred to?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
A reading and analyzing of transcripts is relatively simple. A skeptic or coldreader actually sitting in the chair themselves and practicing what they preach and fooling people might take some more effort..

Perhaps. You are not addressing the issue: Did you read the transcripts and the analyses?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Skeptics and coldreaders who make the claim of flawed research and it being easy to do in Schwartz setting are making a claim too. They must provide evidence, you know that. You yourself have said that "Yes, it is." Well, prove it, contact Schwartz and take the same tests as the claimed mediums did.

I refer you to Marc Berard's excellent review of Schwartz' book.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I can't imagine how you believe the above link to be relevant. BillHoyt posted a link (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/DeceptionBySubjects.html) to a paper of examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychological research, like in a lab setting. I'm looking for more recent examples of things of that nature as all of the examples were from the 1980's.

Which you got, you just brush it aside and claim it is irrelevant.

Do you think you are fooling anyone here? You really think people can't spot this pattern of yours?

Let's do another recap:

What do you think of what Schwartz said?
Have you read the transcripts and analyses I linked to?
Have you read the pages I referred to in Schwartz' book?
Have you read the book at all?
Have you read Marc Berard's analysis of Schwartz' book?

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sullied? In what way is it sullied? I've just been quoting extensively from your link to Irwin's chapter who argues that this is most defintely not true. Why are you lying BillHoyt?

BillHoyt
Why are you incapable of seeing what is there in plain text? Yes he says the reputation is sullied:

Where??

Irwin
Perhaps the ultimate survival of parapsychological research will rest on the demise of parapsychology as a discipline. Stevenson (1988) has questioned parapsychologists' continued determination to represent their research activities as a separate field of study... For example, students with an interest in parapsychological topics would be advised to undertake graduate training in an orthodox field rather than by way of a specialist doctoral program in parapsychology. Having become established vocationally as a mainstream research scientist, the individual could then judiciously apply his or her research expertise to parapsychological issues.

In not the remotest sense does this imply he thinks parapsychological research is sullied. And for those who think that it seems to imply Irwin thinks it is sullied, I advise you to read the stuff before this quote. In particular Irwin states "In view of the reactions of certain inßuential members of the scientiÞc
community it might be asked why anyone would persist in their eÝorts toward
parapsychologyÕs acceptance as a legitimate area for scientiÞc inquiry". And he makes it entirely clear that such reactions have no rational justification.

See also the pages leading up to this sad, sad suggestion.

It is indeed a sad suggestion, but arguably a necessary one as skeptics unfortunately wield a lot of power.

Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory.

No he doesn't. He blames the irrational prejudices of skeptics and the unfortunate fact they wield a lot of influence.

Ian
I got the impression that this is what you were saying. But anyway, it seems that neither of us know why these people should want to use known frauds. I tend to agree with you that it seems bad. But surely it is incumbent on us to read the reasons before outright condemning? I admit though that it is difficult to see how they could justify theiur stance here. But still . . .

BillHoyt
Spin some hypotheses here, Ian. Read the paper first, though.

What paper? You have a paper of parapsychologists specifying why they should use subjects who have previously cheated? Excellent! Links please.

Ian
But anyway, I was more interested in your denial that he is not a skeptic. Can you justify this assertion?

BillHoyt
Read the chapter, Ian.

I have. Nowhere does he state or imply he is a believer. He might well be, but where's the evidence??

The section immediately follows the sad passage I quoted above. Irwin launches into a lengthy, postmodernist / feminist dissertation on the entire framework of science might need to be abandoned.

So what? Thius certainly need not imply he believes. He's simply suggesting a method which might be more conducive to good results should such phenomena exist.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory.

Missed this before. You're alleging there was fraud associated with the research undertook by the Rhines?? :eek:

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Uh no I am simply asking you for evidence. I am not implying anything.
My mistake. You're right. You didn't imply anything. You asserted it as the consequent of the antecedent, "If there are no more recent examples."

Y'ou:

Is there anything more recent than from the 1980's?!

If not, that would tell me that paraspychology experiments and methods are indeed improving! Or that magicians etc. are getting worse.

Specific examples...?
Already given earlier. Several of them.

Specific examples...? [/B]
Irwin provided several. Read the online chapters. Buy the book. Or don't. Actually bothering with real scholarship might interfere with your tr'olling game. Can't have that, can we?

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Missed this before. You're alleging there was fraud associated with the research undertook by the Rhines?? :eek:

Read your own post, dated today, at 10:47.

:dl:

And tell us again how you've read everything. It is crystal clear you don't read what YOU write!

Get off the computer superhighway before you get pulled over for posting while intoxicated.

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 02:28 PM

Claus,

Could you do me (and others who will be fascinated by what has been revealed here) a favor? Can you capture this whole thread so we have a permanent record of Ian's persistent claims of having read and understood everything? Only to be followed by that outlandish gaffe? I'm sure he'd rather be in a position to deny he didn't read his own d***ed post.

Meanwhile, I'm off to get some wee heavy. I'm done with Troll and Tr'oll Lite.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Read your own post, dated today, at 10:47.

:dl:

And tell us again how you've read everything. It is not crystal clear you don't read what YOU write!

Get off the computer superhighway before you get pulled over for posting while intoxicated.

I didn't post anything at 10.47pm. That was only 5 mins ago and I was playing the demo of "Far Cry". Certainly I have not said or implied that the Rhines were implicated in fraud. Again you lie.

I again ask you the question, since you've so far ignored it. Are you alleging there was fraud associated with the research undertook by the Rhines?? :eek:

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 02:42 PM

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 02:43 PM

Claus,

My request to capture and archive this was a bit premature. The hilarity is NOT over!

:dl:

CFLarsen

24th January 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Claus,

Could you do me (and others who will be fascinated by what has been revealed here) a favor? Can you capture this whole thread so we have a permanent record of Ian's persistent claims of having read and understood everything? Only to be followed by that outlandish gaffe? I'm sure he'd rather be in a position to deny he didn't read his own d***ed post.

Meanwhile, I'm off to get some wee heavy. I'm done with Troll and Tr'oll Lite.

I regularly take full backups of this forum. Devastatingly so. Those who think they can sink into oblivion are sadly mistaken.

I record it all.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I regularly take full backups of this forum. Devastatingly so. Those who think they can sink into oblivion are sadly mistaken.

I record it all.

That's fine. Many people accuse me of gaffes. Not one has ever been substantiated. I await patiently for BillHoyt to point to anywhere where I have been inconsistent in the remotest manner in this thread (or indeed any other thread).

His failure to do so will speak volumes.

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

That's fine. Many people accuse me of gaffes. Not one has ever been substantiated. I await patiently for BillHoyt to point to anywhere where I have been inconsistent in the remotest manner in this thread (or indeed any other thread).

His failure to do so will speak volumes.
If some boy scout wants to earn a merit badge here, please help this old lady across the street. Be sure to point out her post, and explain carefully who Levy was, what he did, and what it had to do with the Rhine lab. You may need to shout, she's hard of hearing.

I'm about to take off to have a few wee heavy with one of the finest dancers at the club. We both have the night off, and I don't want to be late...

CFLarsen

24th January 2004, 03:07 PM

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Excuse me, Ian...but are you saying that you have never made a mistake here? A "gaffe" usually means "mistake".

Just yes or no.

I imagine I probably have, although I cannot recall doing so. I certainly have made no mistakes in this thread so far as I am able to discern.

CFLarsen

24th January 2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I imagine I probably have, although I cannot recall doing so. I certainly have made no mistakes in this thread so far as I am able to discern.

If you are not aware of what you have answered, how can you possibly say that you have not?

Please, do not make the mistake of back-pedalling. That would render you as a complete hypocrite.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you are not aware of what you have answered, how can you possibly say that you have not?

Please, do not make the mistake of back-pedalling. That would render you as a complete hypocrite.

Where have I stated that I am not aware of my answers in this thread?

If I have made any mistakes in this thread then be so good as to point them out. Failure to do so will confirm my suspicion that you cannot find any.

CFLarsen

24th January 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Many people accuse me of gaffes. Not one has ever been substantiated.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I imagine I probably have, although I cannot recall doing so.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Please provide the evidence that your "gaffes" have never "ever" been substantiated.

"Ever" means not just this thread. It means "ever".

Do not play word games with me, Ian. You will lose.

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Please provide the evidence that your "gaffes" have never "ever" been substantiated.

Don't be so absurd! :eek: The evidence consists in the fact that no-one is able to show any gaffes on my part. This is highly suggestful that such gaffes do not exist.

But this is not surprising. I'm not a politician you know ;)

"Ever" means not just this thread. It means "ever".

Do not play word games with me, Ian. You will lose. [/B]

What evidence do you have to suppose this?

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You sure "forget" easily. Let's recap:

Tangent. Let's not.

It may be irrelevant to you, but I am asking you anyway: What do you think of what he said?

Irrelevant. I am only interested in the facts here, not opinions, not yours, mine, Schwartz's or Randi's.

Perhaps. You are not addressing the issue: Did you read the transcripts and the analyses?

Yes, and you're not addressing the issue of:

A reading and analyzing of transcripts is relatively simple (and doesn't prove anything much). A skeptic or coldreader actually sitting in the chair themselves and practicing what they preach and fooling people might take some more effort and prove more.

Which you got, you just brush it aside and claim it is irrelevant.

Whatever. I'll post it again since you ignored it:

I can't imagine how you believe the above link to be relevant. BillHoyt posted a link to a paper of examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychological research, like in a lab setting. I'm looking for more recent examples of things of that nature as all of the examples were from the 1980's.

Your example of astrology has nothing to do with anything of what I asked for.

Do you think you are fooling anyone here? You really think people can't spot this pattern of yours?

I'm not interested in playing in the mud with you and Bill. All I've asked for is specific examples of skeptics fooling people in the laboratory or deliberate fraud in the laboratory more recent than the 1980's.

Let's do another recap:

Tangent. I continue to fail to be intimidated by your lists.

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Already given earlier. Several of them.

Uh huh...

Buy the book.

:rolleyes:

Actually bothering with real scholarship might interfere with your tr'olling game. Can't have that, can we?

:rolleyes:

I guess my scholarship isn't real enough becase it still hasn't found any evidence.

CFLarsen

24th January 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Don't be so absurd! :eek: The evidence consists in the fact that no-one is able to show any gaffes on my part. This is highly suggestful that such gaffes do not exist.

I am not asking for suggestions, I am asking for evidence. Can you provide it or not?

Just yes or no. Please.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But this is not surprising. I'm not a politician you know ;)

Yes, we know. Just provide your evidence that you have ever "gaffed".

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What evidence do you have to suppose this?

Nice try, but no cigar. Please provide positive evidence. Don't ask for others to provide negative evidence.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Tangent. Let's not.

If you do not want to discuss this, then do not bring it up.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Irrelevant. I am only interested in the facts here, not opinions, not yours, mine, Schwartz's or Randi's.

If you are not interested in anything else but facts, why do you bring up the opinions of Schwartz?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes,

Fine. What do you think of it?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
and you're not addressing the issue of:

Let's wait until we have heard what you think of it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
A reading and analyzing of transcripts is relatively simple (and doesn't prove anything much). A skeptic or coldreader actually sitting in the chair themselves and practicing what they preach and fooling people might take some more effort and prove more.

Fine. Whatever. Let's wait until we have heard what you think of the analyses.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Whatever. I'll post it again since you ignored it:

No, I did not "ignore" it. I merely pointed out that you are not willing to debate issues.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I can't imagine how you believe the above link to be relevant. BillHoyt posted a link to a paper of examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychological research, like in a lab setting. I'm looking for more recent examples of things of that nature as all of the examples were from the 1980's.

Your example of astrology has nothing to do with anything of what I asked for.

What is your critera then? Please be specific.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm not interested in playing in the mud with you and Bill. All I've asked for is specific examples of skeptics fooling people in the laboratory or deliberate fraud in the laboratory more recent than the 1980's.

You got that. You brushed it off. Your problem, not anyone elses.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Tangent. I continue to fail to be intimidated by your lists.

You continue to be unable to answer them.

Very well, then:

You post opinions of Schwartz's. You have no opinion of them.
You have not read the analyses I presented. You asked for them, you refused to even read them.
You have not read the pages from Schwartz' book. You asked for evidence, you refused to read it.
You have not read Schwartz' book at all.
You have not read Marc Berard's analysis at all.

Just tell me this: How do you suppose that anyone take you seriously? You ask for evidence, you freely admit that you cannot be bothered to read it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hint: When you can't provide evidence, attacking the person does not work.

You got that right. Now, could you please address some issues?

Interesting Ian

24th January 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Nincompoop! I am not in your time zone. I did not say p.m.

:dl:

Well it certainly wasn't am because I was in bed between the hours of 5am and 1pm.

Would you care to specify where you believe I have contradicted myself or not?

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

I will tell you now that not only can I not emulate one of the effects from the meeting; I still have no idea how it was done. He did it that well. By your reasoning, since I cannot emulate his performance to the same level, he obviously has spooky magic powers.

No, I'm not saying that since you can't emuate his performance that therefore he has real powers. I am saying that if he is being studied in an experiment and you are saying the experiment is so flawed that it is easy to fool the experimenters, yet you can only analyze the transcripts but not actually participate in said experiment or similar experiment and fool people yourself, nor is any other cold reader stepping up to bat, that that is a somewhat funny stance of you or the cold readers to take. I am not saying that therefore the mediums are the real deal, just that the criticism is somewhat amusing.

Schwartz' burden. JE's burden. Your burden. Not mine.

It depends on the claim. If Schwartz claims a medium is the real deal, it is on him. If the claim is that his experiments are flawed enough to where cold readers are claiming they can easily fool the experimenters, it is on them.

thaiboxerken

24th January 2004, 04:57 PM

. I am not saying that therefore the mediums are the real deal, just that the criticism is somewhat amusing.

Do you find it foolish to point out flaws in an experiment and challenge? You find it foolish to show that Schwartz is already cheating to make it impossible for his "mediums" to lose out to any cold-readers?

It depends on the claim. If Schwartz claims a medium is the real deal, it is on him. If the claim is that his experiments are flawed enough to where cold readers are claiming they can easily fool the experimenters, it is on them.

False, Schwartz is making the claim that cold-readers can't do what his "real" mediums can. The burden is upon Schwartz because he is making 2 claims here.

1. That his mediums are real.

2. Cold readers can't do what his "real" mediums can.

Also, Schwartz seems to want to have complete control of his experiment, that data of the experiment and the rights to publish results. Sorry, but that doesn't sit well with skeptics and science. Schwartz is already seeding his challenge for him to win.

What's really amusing here is that you don't see Schwartz' challenge for what it really is. It's just a stunt for him to gain publicity and his vain attempt to discredit any skepticism.

If Schwartz had some real science, he'd be providing raw data and results of his experiments for scientific review.

BillHoyt

24th January 2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It depends on the claim. If Schwartz claims a medium is the real deal, it is on him. If the claim is that his experiments are flawed enough to where cold readers are claiming they can easily fool the experimenters, it is on them.
The burden, as has been told to you so many times, is on the claimant. The cold readers did not originate a claim. The cold readers responded to a claim. Moreover, the cold readers operate with the current evidence on their side. The psi guys operate against the evidence of all known science.

It is remarkable that you fail to grasp the idea of burden of proof. If you are the dork that claims you have a talking wombat, it is up to you to demonstrate that. If I then respond that no, you don't have a talking wombat, you still must demonstrate that you do. Why? Because you created the claim. Because there are no known talking wombats, and you are swimming uphill against the evidence.

Garrette

24th January 2004, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt:

Garrette,

For the record, what was the date of your e-mail to Schwartz?

Earlier I said I had sent it on 2 December. Rechecking this morning, I find it was actually 3 December.

I also found a potential mistake in the address, so there may be no actual delay on Schwartz's part.

I sent the first e-mail to using an address that spells his full last name. In relooking at the address I was provided by Steve, I should have left off the "z".

To rectify and be sure, I resent the e-mail this morning (25 January where I am; still 24 January EST) to both addresses.

Garrette

24th January 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Thaiboxerken:

Also, Schwartz seems to want to have complete control of his experiment, that data of the experiment and the rights to publish results.

I have no problem with Schwartz wanting complete control of the experiment itself. He should have it. In the case of my offer to replicate JE's results, he must, however, agree to the same protocols, including the same flaws and weaknesses.

I do object to any attempt to hide or falsely represent the data.

Regarding the rights to publish, I would like an agreement that it does get published, in full, with complete disclosure. I would also like the right to publish my own comments and analysis, with an opportunity for Schwartz to review and also comment if he likes.

Garrette

24th January 2004, 08:41 PM

Tai Chi,

I don't know if I'm "feeding the trolls" here or not, but what the heck.

If you have not read Schwartz's book or at least the summary you can find online, and it does not appear you have, then I suggest you do so. Alternatively or in addition, you should read any or all the dissections of the experiments. I wrote a detailed analysis on tvtalkshows. You can still find it by search on that board.

Others have written better ones. Claus has mentioned them and has some on his site.

A major difficulty in discussing the results Schwartz got is that he does not, anywhere of which I am aware, fully disclose them.

There are four different, related, experiments in his book.

In the first, five mediums read one sitter; two of them read a second sitter. A total of seven readings. He gives only partial results for all of them: excerpts from the transcripts and only a summary of the analysis, with very little listing of what was considered a hit and what was not or how a numerical rating of accuracy (-3 to +3) by the sitter was turned into a percentage accuracy.

In the second, four mediums read ten sitters. 40 readings.
Schwartz gives excerpts from 8 of them. Again, only a summary of the analysis.

In the third, four mediums read four sitters, two read one other, and one read another (who happened to be Schwartz himself after Schwartz, against his own protocol, stepped into the experiment because the reader (John Edward) appeared to be giving information for Schwartz as opposed to the sitter. No marks against John for missing with the original sitter; positive marks for hitting with Schwartz. 19 readings. Schwartz provides excerpts from 2 of them, including his own.

In the fourth, one medium reads three sitters. Excerpts from one of them, the one who happens to claim to be a medium himself, is fairly well known, and whose recently published book is in the same house as the medium.

---

Which should explain why I anticipate difficulty in reaching an agreement with Schwartz.

Separate from the fact that Schwartz will have to fully disclose his method of analysis so it can be identically applied to my results, I will insist on the same weaknesses in protocol and controls.

Refer to my comments on the third experiment. Bear in mind that one of the things Schwartz touts is that the mediums could not possibly know anything about the sitters before hand. This is untrue, I think, about all the sitters, but patently untrue about Schwartz himself and about the cameraman who was, not for the first time, also in the room with JE.

When I read for a sitter, I want prior knowledge of the nearby experimenter and cameraman, and I want full marks for providing information pertinent to them, without concurrent negative marks for not reading the (ostensibly) unknown sitter.

There's more than just that, though.

I suggest you read up on it if you want to pursue this line of thought.

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Also, Schwartz seems to want to have complete control of his experiment

Uh, he's the scientist.

T'ai Chi

24th January 2004, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Garrette

I don't know if I'm "feeding the trolls" here or not, but what the heck.

Considering only three or four self-appointed hall monitors here label me a troll, I think we can discount that notion.

If you have not read Schwartz's book or at least the summary you can find online, and it does not appear you have,

How exactly does it not appear I have read it? You've said that and BillHoyt has said that. Interesting beliefs, but I have read it. I do not own it, but I've read it in increments at a local bookstore. I thought it was very interesting, but I would have liked to seen more details too.

You make interesting points though and I hope Schwartz gets back to you. Hopefully the corrected email address will do the trick. ;) (I've done that so many times before!) Yes, going to UArizona's Psychology dept. webpage and searching for 'Core Faculty' one finds his email, and there is no z on the end.

Garrette

25th January 2004, 12:01 AM

I'm happy to not call you a troll, TC. No problem.

It appears that you have not read it because I haven't seen you post anything specific about the experiments except that they happened. No offense, but I don't think reading a book in increments at the store is the same as having read it in detail.

That's not the point, though. Whether you've read it or not, questions concerning my issues with the experiments, and more importantly other people's issues, can be found on the internet. Claus linked to some.

I hope Schwartz responds soon, too. Bad on me for screwing up the address.

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Considering only three or four self-appointed hall monitors here label me a troll, I think we can discount that notion.

One would think that with that "extensive" education in "mathematics" and "statistics," you might have a shot at counting. The list of those who have already called you a troll is just a tad longer than you claim:

Fade
TLN
Patricio Elicer
Stimpson J Cat
Dr Benway
zakur
Unrepentent Sinner
Lord Kenneth
Upchurch
Peter Soderqvist
thaiboxerken
jj
BillHoyt
RichardR

Shall we do a more extensive search? I wonder how many I've missed? Perhaps "remedial counting" should be your next graduate course?

Lucianarchy

25th January 2004, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Garrette

Earlier I said I had sent it on 2 December. Rechecking this morning, I find it was actually 3 December.

I also found a potential mistake in the address, so there may be no actual delay on Schwartz's part.

I sent the first e-mail to using an address that spells his full last name. In relooking at the address I was provided by Steve, I should have left off the "z".

To rectify and be sure, I resent the e-mail this morning (25 January where I am; still 24 January EST) to both addresses.

:rolleyes:

Lucianarchy

25th January 2004, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

One would think that with that "extensive" education in "mathematics" and "statistics," you might have a shot at counting. The list of those who have already called you a troll is just a tad longer than you claim:

Fade
TLN
Patricio Elicer
Stimpson J Cat
Dr Benway
zakur
Unrepentent Sinner
Lord Kenneth
Upchurch
Peter Soderqvist
thaiboxerken
jj
BillHoyt
RichardR

The problem is, all those people / sockpuppets are trolls. And you, Sir, are the worst of them!

Why won't any cold reader actually take Dr S up on his challenge?

It must be a cinch to tap such supposedly leaky controls and protocols, Shirley?

What, in heaven's name, are they afraid of?

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I didn't post anything at 10.47pm. That was only 5 mins ago and I was playing the demo of "Far Cry". Certainly I have not said or implied that the Rhines were implicated in fraud. Again you lie.

I again ask you the question, since you've so far ignored it. Are you alleging there was fraud associated with the research undertook by the Rhines?? :eek:
Ian,

It has been nearly a day since you answered your own question. Only you didn't read it. It was from chapter 17 of Irwin's textbook. Only you didn't read that chapter. You posted the passage from chapter 17 of Irwin's book on Levy being caught red-handed manipulating data at Rhine's lab. You posted it at 10:47, eastern U.S. time, yesterday. Only you didn't read your own post.

We had a *yawn* fascinating exchange yesterday, where fact after fact that I presented came straight from sources I had cited. I gave you the links. You even added more. When you asked question after question about those facts, I fired back, asking if you had not read those sources. Of course, you claimed you had. Of course, you quoted passage after passage from those sources. Maybe attempting to prove you had read the sources? One can only speculate.

But, as with everything else you post here, you did so disingenuously. They were simply cut & paste diversions, not meant to understand my points or the authors', not meant to address my points or the authors', but simply meant to drive the discussion off course so as to avoid addressing your previous claims about fraud and parapsychology.

In the midst of this mad attempt to red herring your previous gaffe, you laid a wondrous egg, Ian. Big, heavy, and white, it fell to the ground while your mouth went suddenly agape in horror. When it hit the craggy rocks below, it cracked open. You haven't yet cleaned it up, and it is beginning to smell. I told you about the egg before it began smelling. "What egg," you cried. I told you to go back and find your egg. "What egg, there is no egg," you insisted. I've told you the exact time you laid it. I've reminded you what it looked like and where you laid it. Mysteriously, you have yet to find it. Mysteriously, you have yet to remember having laid it. Mysterioulsy, you have yet to remember having posted about Levy being caught red-handed at Rhine's lab.

So which is it, Ian? Did you not read your own 10:47 post? Did you not understand it when you posted it? Did you burn those particular brain cells and manage to forget about it a few hours later? Have you since been unable to find that post? After I gave you the time stamp? Even though you know the key word (Rhine) to search on? Even though I've already given you the other key word (Levy) to search on? Even though this thread only has five pages? Do you not know how to use the "find in page" feature of your browser? Do you not know how to use the JREF search feature? Or are you simply a lying, deceitful, disingenuous troll poster? One who knows he's been caught once again in an intellectually dishonest game? No matter how you answer, others will form their own conclusions. No matter how you answer, you've laid the egg and it smells.

Your entertainment value has hit an all-time high. But don't worry, they're not laughing at you... Sorry, that's exactly what they're doing.

CFLarsen

25th January 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Missed this before. You're alleging there was fraud associated with the research undertook by the Rhines?? :eek:

Read what BillHoyt said:

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory.

He said "Rhine's laboratory." Here's a snippet of your own post:

Dr. W. J. Levy had worked in RhineÕs laboratory for a few years and was interested
primarily in psi research with animals (anpsi). In Á974 some students
observed Levy tinkering with the automatic recording apparatus being used
in one of the laboratoryÕs anpsi experiments. Secret recordings of the data
were arranged and on comparison with LevyÕs reported results, discrepancies
were found. When confronted by Rhine, Levy acknowledged his fraudulent
activity and was dismissed.

(Emphasis mine)

It would help if you improved your reading skills.

Do you still maintain that there was no history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory?

Just yes or no, please.

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

One would think that with that "extensive" education in "mathematics" and "statistics," you might have a shot at counting. The list of those who have already called you a troll is just a tad longer than you claim:

Sorry Bill. As your rhetoric increases... well, it just increases.

As far as your list of people who consider me a troll, I only consider the most vocal self appointed hall monitors who continually call me a troll at every chance they get (and who predictably post right after the other), of which there are about 3. To do so, you must discount or wholly ignore the number of posts I've had where I posted serious, insightful, helpful, and/or interesting material, of which there is plenty if you used the search feature in the other direction.

Since you probably have a different version of events, the facts are that you questioned my statistical and mathematical knowledge (in response to me questioning your statistical conclusions after you said some dubious comments re: your belief in the adequecy of your test for JE cold reading, apparently by juvenille namecalling against me, questioning of my professors, claiming I got my degrees from a Bazooka Joe wrapper, saying my test for non-randomness was a "crap smear", etc.) only later to prove yourself quite inadequate when called on it.

You asked me mathematical statistical questions which I answered effortlessly and completely, only to have you claim I obtained the answers off the internet (I can't help it if I actually know the subject). I contacted NIST re: my "crap smear" test for nonrandomness only to have them say they have a similar test and that while mine had some extremely minor technical issues (I PM'd you the correspondence) it had good aspects. Needless to say with your belief set, you probably reacted knee-jerkingly against my mathematics because similar sound mathematics were being used in the study of anomalous mental phenomena (in the papers of Decision Augmention Theory).

In return I asked you questions to guage your competency in the subject (after all, people here and elsewhere pretty much agree that one has to have some to judge others' and make these claims against people, right?) only to have you ignore them all. Not to mention your non-addressing, but continued making fun of via your signature, of the well-established view that mathematical axioms are assumptions/beliefs.

I suggest you argue against arguments and not the person making the arguments, something which you can't seem to avoid in my and others' cases, which is abundantly obvious.

*shrug* Whatever. I continue to fail to be intimidated, or impressed, by such noise.

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As far as your list of people who consider me a troll, I only consider the most vocal self appointed hall monitors who continually call me a troll at every chance they get, of which there are about 3.
Tr'olldini,

No, sir. Here is what you claimed to Garrette:
Considering only three or four self-appointed hall monitors here label me a troll, I think we can discount that notion.
You said three or four label you a troll. Now that I have pointed out to you just a partial list of all those who have labeled you a troll, you try the No True Scotsman maneuver. You try to insert the qualifier, "continually".

Learn to count. Also learn not to engage in fallacies such as the No True Scotsman maneuver.

If you wish to take up that PM, then please post to the original thread. And be sure to post the complete message from NIST. But perhaps you ought to read the complete message first, remind yourself about the definition of "power," ask yourself why the person from NIST wrote what he wrote, and then remind yourself of what I said about the crap smear test. I will not burden this thread with that discussion. Neither will I engage in an off-record, PMs exchange with you.

And... learn to count.

Interesting Ian

25th January 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

It has been nearly a day since you answered your own question. Only you didn't read it. It was from chapter 17 of Irwin's textbook. Only you didn't read that chapter. You posted the passage from chapter 17 of Irwin's book on Levy being caught red-handed manipulating data at Rhine's lab. You posted it at 10:47, eastern U.S. time, yesterday. Only you didn't read your own post.

But this occurred in 1974!! :eek: Rhines research started in the 1930's and this was when parapsychology started. A reasonably interpretation of your remark "Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory" was that you were referring to this time period i.e that you were referring to the history of parapsychological research starting with Rhine's investigations of these alleged phenomena. But in fact the "history of fraud" is actually less than 30 years! Well . .OK.

And as I said before, the statement "Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory", even in the modified sense in which you mean it, cannot be substantiated. As I said before, and which you apparently missed:

{quote}
No he doesn't ( i.e Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory) He blames the irrational prejudices of skeptics and the unfortunate fact they wield a lot of influence.
{/quote}

We had a *yawn* fascinating exchange yesterday, where fact after fact that I presented came straight from sources I had cited.

And still you have not answered my questions such as substantiating your belief that Irwin is a believer, that parapsychological research is sullied, you acknowledging that you were wrong about the fraud issue etc.

In the midst of this mad attempt to red herring your previous gaffe,

It is most unresonable to call it a gaffe. Any reasonable person reading the statement "Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory" would take it to mean the reseach conducted by Rhine himself in the 1930's which inaugurated the scientific discipline of parapsychology. Not by some other guy 40 years later working in the Rhines lab! Anyway, Irwin most certainly states no such thing. You either are comprehensively failing to understand what he is saying, or you are pretending to comprehensively misunderstand what he's saying. Either way, it's pretty bad.

Interesting Ian

25th January 2004, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Read what BillHoyt said:

He said "Rhine's laboratory." Here's a snippet of your own post:

It would help if you improved your reading skills.

Do you still maintain that there was no history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory?

Just yes or no, please.

In the more common and obvious interpretation of this sentence then it is false. See my response to BillHoyt.

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But this occurred in 1974!! :eek: Rhines research started in the 1930's and this was when parapsychology started. A reasonably interpretation of your remark "Irwin blames a number of factors, not the least amongst them the history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory" was that you were referring to this time period i.e that you were referring to the history of parapsychological research starting with Rhine's investigations of these alleged phenomena. But in fact the "history of fraud" is actually less than 30 years! Well . .OK..

No True Scotsman maneuver. Pathetic. It is, of course, ironic that, in the midst of debating fraud in parapsychology, you should continually commit intellectual fraud.

But you see, Ian, you expressed surprise that any fraud had happened at Rhine's laboratory. You didn't reply to me with this time qualifier. You simply never read what you cut and pasted here. Your own post. Your own cut & paste. Your own egg.

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

In the more common and obvious interpretation of this sentence then it is false. See my response to BillHoyt.

II: "Just a flesh wound."
[Headbutts BH in the chest]

BH: "Look, stop that."

II:" Chicken! Chicken!"

BH: "Look, I'll have your leg. Right!"
[whack]

II: "Right, I'll do you for that!"

BH: "You'll what?"

II: "Come 'ere!"

BH: "What are you going to do, bleed on me?"

thaiboxerken

25th January 2004, 07:28 AM

The problem is, all those people / sockpuppets are trolls. And you, Sir, are the worst of them!

You obviously don't understand the definition of "troll" in the context we use here. A troll is simply someone that wants to stir up trouble and cares not about the topic at all. Tai Chi is one of those, he's simply argumentative to be argumentative. It doesn't matter what the topic is, Tai Chi will always be arguing against the skeptics.

Why won't any cold reader actually take Dr S up on his challenge?

Because his challenge is rigged so that Dr S can only win. This has been explained several times.

It must be a cinch to tap such supposedly leaky controls and protocols, Shirley?

Not if when the challenge is rigged.

What, in heaven's name, are they afraid of?

Nothing. Skeptics just aren't foolish enough to go into Dr S's rigged challenge. If Dr S really had evidence of afterlife and mediums, he'd have his studies published for peer review and they would withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community.

Uh, he's the scientist.

Yes, but Schwartz also want's complete control of the results and data from the results as well. It's easy to challenge skeptics to such an experiment if you control all aspects of the experiment, including the results. Sorry, but true scientists don't control the results, they only observe them. True scientists don't keep their experiments secret from the rest of the community while declaring success.

Interesting Ian

25th January 2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

No True Scotsman maneuver. Pathetic. It is, of course, ironic that, in the midst of debating fraud in parapsychology, you should continually commit intellectual fraud.

I commited no intellectual fraud, no informal logical fallacies. You however continually commit them and continually demonstrate your lack of ability to understand what others are saying. The latest example here being what Irwin said. :rolleyes:

But you see, Ian, you expressed surprise that any fraud had happened at Rhine's laboratory.

No, no surprise at all. I would be slightly surprised if the Rhines themselves had committed fraud, but certainly not amazed. Fraud happens. It's human nature that some people will commit fraud where there is financial reward, prestige to be obtained etc.

You didn't reply to me with this time qualifier. You simply never read what you cut and pasted here. Your own post. Your own cut & paste. Your own egg. [/B]

Any person who has studied parapsychology in depth would understand the statement as I took it to mean. It is commonly understood that the work done at Rhine's lab is a shorthand way of referring to Rhine's pioneering work. Quit the semantic games.

Now do you concede that I did not make a gaffe??

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

A troll is simply someone that wants to stir up trouble and cares not about the topic at all. Tai Chi is one of those, he's simply argumentative to be argumentative. It doesn't matter what the topic is, Tai Chi will always be arguing against the skeptics.

I've agreed and continue to agree with some of the skeptics here on many issues. I also do care about the topics I post on. That should be obvious to anyone who reads my posts.

I also state if I disagree with some skeptics, which I do on several issues. For example, when you claimed 'there is no god and that is a fact', I called you on it (and you floundered). Don't expect your claims to go unchallenged because you call yourself a skeptic.

As just a few of many counterexamples to your claim of "It doesn't matter what the topic is, Tai Chi will always be arguing against the skeptics.":

Recently Girl6 brought up the issue of the skeptical community reaching out more to women and minorities. I didn't disagree with this, but agreed and offered my suggestions and comments on it.

Several months ago in threads on Yellow Bamboo I agreed with basically everything each skeptic said in the thread!

You do yourself a disservice Ken when you make sweeping claims like you did above. In short, you remember the "misses" and forget the "hits".

CFLarsen

25th January 2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In the more common and obvious interpretation of this sentence then it is false. See my response to BillHoyt.

OK, then: You claim that there was no history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory. Yet, your own post clearly said so.

Nice going. http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/nut.gif

Interesting Ian

25th January 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

OK, then: You claim that there was no history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory. Yet, your own post clearly said so.

Nice going. http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/nut.gif

Please desist with the semantic games and confess that I didn't make a gaffe.

CFLarsen

25th January 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Please desist with the semantic games and confess that I didn't make a gaffe.

No semantic games whatsoever. What I wrote was very clear, and in accordance to what you posted.

There is nothing for me to "confess".

Let's recap that again:

You claim that there was no history of fraud going back to Rhine's laboratory. Yet, your own post clearly said so.

And you want people to think this is a "semantic game". Incredible.

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Please desist with the semantic games and confess that I didn't make a gaffe.

Claus,

At least he didn't ask you to die, like he did someone else on the telepathy thread.

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now do you concede that I did not make a gaffe??
On deeper analysis, yes, I do. You did not gaffe.

You also did not read the sources. You lied about it. You posted a passage without understanding it. You then were absolutely surprised to hear from me the information you had cut & pasted with neither reading nor understanding. You then lied about that.

But, it cannot properly be called a gaffe.

Interesting Ian

25th January 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Claus,

At least he didn't ask you to die, like he did someone else on the telepathy thread.

I certainly did not!

Interesting Ian

25th January 2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

On deeper analysis, yes, I do. You did not gaffe.

You also did not read the sources. You lied about it. You posted a passage without understanding it.

Perfectly wrong on all counts. Indeed, on the contrary, it is quite evident that you fail to understand the source.

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Claus,

At least he didn't ask you to die, like he did someone else on the telepathy thread.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I certainly did not!

Yes you did. Here. (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870287974&highlight=please+decease#post1870287974)

You're really beginning to lose it.

NoZed Avenger

25th January 2004, 11:25 AM

And here we have a perfect example of why I no longer have any real interest in cold reading threads.

N/A

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2004, 11:33 AM

Nozed, I'm getting a "B" . . . and an "S" . . .

~~ Paul

BillHoyt

25th January 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
And here we have a perfect example of why I no longer have any real interest in cold reading threads.

N/A

Is there somebody near the front row named "Nose?" Yes, "Nozed," that's it. They're speaking softly, almost weakly. I'm getting an "M" here. Yes, that's it, its your late Aunt Moira. She wants you to know, and this is very important; you no longer have any real interest in cold reading threads. Do you understand this?

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 02:28 PM

Finished your 'only analyze the letter J to determine if mediums are cold reading' analysis for various mediums yet?

I'm sure a lot of people would like to see your results..

CFLarsen

25th January 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Finished your 'only analyze the letter J to determine if mediums are cold reading' analysis for various mediums yet?

I'm sure a lot of people would like to see your results..

T'ai Chi,

Have you any opinions of Schwartz's quotes yet?
Have you read the analyses I presented yet?
Have you read the pages from Schwartz' book yet?
Have you read Schwartz' book yet?
Have you read Marc Berard's analysis yet?

I'm sure your argument could benefit from actually knowing what the heck you are trying to argue.

Lucianarchy

25th January 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Have you any opinions of Schwartz's quotes yet?
Have you read the analyses I presented yet?
Have you read the pages from Schwartz' book yet?
Have you read Schwartz' book yet?
Have you read Marc Berard's analysis yet?

Ooh, a 'List'. :D

Only one question though:

Why don't cold readers take the Schwartz Research Chair Challenge?

CFLarsen

25th January 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Ooh, a 'List'. :D

Only one question though:

Why don't cold readers take the Schwartz Research Chair Challenge?

They do. Ask Garrette.

Here are quite a few questions for you:

"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

T'ai Chi

25th January 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

T'ai Chi,

Have you any opinions of Schwartz's quotes yet?
Have you read the analyses I presented yet?
Have you read the pages from Schwartz' book yet?
Have you read Schwartz' book yet?
Have you read Marc Berard's analysis yet?

I'm sure your argument could benefit from actually knowing what the heck you are trying to argue.

Just to prove you do NOT pay attention at times, and therefore your list items are moot, in this very thread I've already stated that I do have opinons of Schwartz (which are not the topic. As I've said, the facts themselves are), and I've already stated I have read Schwartz's book (read my responses to Garrette. What can I say, you must have forgot what you read so carefully over...) and in response to your "Did you read the transcripts and the analyses?" question I already said: "Yes, and you're not addressing...", so again I answered you.

Just to keep you on your toes, as you apparently need it, given that all 5 of your list questions were already addresed, since I'm a fast typer, from now on I will always ask at least twice the amount of questions you ask to me.

I will then, of course, constantly provide links to them in future discussions with you.

Count on it.

Why did you ignore my answers and then ask me the same questions again?
Do you feel that "triple blinding" makes sense?
Where did Schwartz say that he believes in the Tooth Fairy?
How is my your example of an astrologer you squabbled with any where close to satisfying my request of recent (post 1980's) examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychology?
Do you consider SI to be a scientific peer reviewed journal?
Do you believe BillHoyt's (paraphrasing is mine) 'we can statistically analyze only the letter J to help determine if a medium is cold reading' to be sound?
Do you believe it is more difficult for an admitted cold reader to analyze a transcript of a reading and say this is where and how the sitter was fooled, or actually pretend to be a medium themselves and try to fool people under the same experimental conditions that the mediums go through?
Do you believe the quality of parapsychological experiments is significantly improving over time?
Do you agree that the statistical methods and theory are sound in many parapsycholgical papers?
Recently a skeptic of telepathy didn't do so good of a job presenting the case and evidence why it is apparently bunk (the majority of the audience thought the pro-telepathy evidence was far better). How would you do better presenting?
Are there cold readers who are claiming they can fool sitters under Schwartz's experimental conditions?
In what branches of science/study do you feel magicians are necessary to observe or plan/design experiments?
Do you believe colleges and universities should hire on magicians as professors or faculty members or consultants?
If BillHoyt can critique my knowledge of mathematics and statistics, isn't he implying that he has knowledge of mathematics and statistics, knowledge that I can then question him on as he questioned me on?
Don't you find it interesting that NIST scientists who design tests for non-randomness said (after I emailed it to them) that mine was similar to one they have, yet BillHoyt refers to it as a "crap smear"?
Do you believe one cannot prove a negative?
If the laws of physics are determined by physical objects, and physical objects are always changing, does this imply that the laws of physics are changing (albeit slowly)?
What should my next move be in the chess game in the Puzzle section?

Interesting Ian

25th January 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Why did you ignore my answers and then ask me the same questions again?
Do you feel that "triple blinding" makes sense?
Where did Schwartz say that he believes in the Tooth Fairy?
How is my your example of an astrologer you squabbled with any where close to satisfying my request of recent (post 1980's) examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychology?
Do you consider SI to be a scientific peer reviewed journal?
Do you believe BillHoyt's (paraphrasing is mine) 'we can statistically analyze only the letter J to help determine if a medium is cold reading' to be sound?
Do you believe it is more difficult for an admitted cold reader to analyze a transcript of a reading and say this is where and how the sitter was fooled, or actually pretend to be a medium themselves and try to fool people under the same experimental conditions that the mediums go through?
Do you believe the quality of parapsychological experiments is significantly improving over time?
Do you agree that the statistical methods and theory are sound in many parapsycholgical papers?
Recently a skeptic of telepathy didn't do so good of a job presenting the case and evidence why it is apparently bunk (the majority of the audience thought the pro-telepathy evidence was far better). How would you do better presenting?
Are there cold readers who are claiming they can fool sitters under Schwartz's experimental conditions?
In what branches of science/study do you feel magicians are necessary to observe or plan/design experiments?
Do you believe colleges and universities should hire on magicians as professors or faculty members or consultants?
If BillHoyt can critique my knowledge of mathematics and statistics, isn't he implying that he has knowledge of mathematics and statistics, knowledge that I can then question him on as he questioned me on?
Don't you find it interesting that NIST scientists who design tests for non-randomness said (after I emailed it to them) that mine was similar to one they have, yet BillHoyt refers to it as a "crap smear"?
Do you believe one cannot prove a negative?
If the laws of physics are determined by physical objects, and physical objects are always changing, does this imply that the laws of physics are changing (albeit slowly)?
What should my next move be in the chess game in the Puzzle section?
[/B]

Come on Claus. Answer the questions!

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

25th January 2004, 04:20 PM

Skeptics,

To properly crush nonsense we need to resort to lying and making sh*t up, ruthless personal attacks, misrepresenting the opposition’s views, avoiding questions, being vague, running around the issues, stating our opinions as fact, refusing to consider kooks arguments, etc! This may sound dishonest but it doesn’t matter because skeptics are supporting the ultimate proven truth (materialism)! We will resort to anything to defend science and the undeniable view of a physically closed universe with material minds which tend to get gullible!

You can’t have science without materialism!

Jeff Corey

25th January 2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Skeptics,

To properly crush nonsense we need to resort to lying and making sh*t up, ruthless personal attacks, misrepresenting the opposition’s views, avoiding questions, being vague, running around the issues, stating our opinions as fact, refusing to consider kooks arguments, etc! This may sound dishonest but it doesn’t matter because skeptics are supporting the ultimate proven truth (materialism)! We will resort to anything to defend science and the undeniable view of a physically closed universe with material minds which tend to get gullible!

You can’t have science without materialism!
Works for me, dude or dudess. Let me fire up my BongoMatic before I compose a reply.
Ahh, dat's better.
I glean from the screed above that you are attempting to parody your conception of what skeptics believe and how they behave.
A good parody ought to contain more than a fraction of a grain of truth, otherwise the audience doesn't get the parody or satire or lampoon, whatever.
Think "The Rutles" without those other British gents.
Think "This Is Spinal Tap" without all those other British wankers and Yankers.
Think "A Modest Proposal" without the cannibalism problem involving British gents scarfing Irish stew.
But, I agree with your last line.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

25th January 2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Works for me, dude or dudess. Let me fire up my BongoMatic before I compose a reply.
Ahh, dat's better.
I glean from the screed above that you are attempting to parody your conception of what skeptics believe and how they behave.
A good parody ought to contain more than a fraction of a grain of truth, otherwise the audience doesn't get the parody or satire or lampoon, whatever.
Think "The Rutles" without those other British gents.
Think "This Is Spinal Tap" without all those other British wankers and Yankers.
Think "A Modest Proposal" without the cannibalism problem involving British gents scarfing Irish stew.
But, I agree with your last line.

Its no parody skeptics must do all of that because believers are incapable of listening to anything outside of fairy tales! Materialism has been proven through extensive tests over the years that have been replicated over and over again! This is not to be questioned! Some may wonder why it is questioned with all of this proof!!! This happens because some people have a deep hatred towards science, logic, and truth!

Kerberos

26th January 2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Do you feel that "triple blinding" makes sense?
What is triple blinding? I know what double blinding is but what is the third party you blind?
Originally posted by T'ai Chi

What should my next move be in the chess game in the Puzzle section?

It isn't your move. Besides isn't asking for help cheating? :coal:

26th January 2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Far be it from me to speak for Claus, but it is early here and I have a bit of time so I thought that I'd comment on a few of your points

Why did you ignore my answers and then ask me the same questions again?
Do you feel that "triple blinding" makes sense?

Yes it does. The greater the ignorance of who is doing what to whom and who's results say what statistically, the better. This, of course is a basic tenent of research.

Where did Schwartz say that he believes in the Tooth Fairy?

That refers to this

"Schwartz observer Marc Berard writes that perhaps TIME writer Leon Jaroff was not incorrect in his assessment of Schwartz's belief structure, when he opined that the scientist believes in the Tooth Fairy:

It occurred to me recently that you can prove that Schwartz actually does believe in the Tooth Fairy. In his book he mentions how in thinking about stories, we create info-energy systems that can take on a life of their own. In my review of the book, I mentioned how that would mean that Santa, Ronald McDonald, Freddy Kruger, and Romeo, would then all exist as these info-energy system "spirits." In private correspondence with Schwartz, he agreed with that statement, that his theory predicts the existence of such beings.
Now, the Tooth Fairy has been in many cartoons, jokes, stories, and commercials over the years. Therefore Schwartz's theory actually predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy. As it is fairly certain that Schwartz believes in his theory, and his theory predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy, therefore Schwartz must believe in the Tooth Fairy. "

Contained here:

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html

An inference but reasonably sound.

How is my your example of an astrologer you squabbled with any where close to satisfying my request of recent (post 1980's) examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychology?

I presume that you mean that we know about? Well, Elizabeth Targ was a fraud. Her AIDs/Prayer research was unblinded during analysis in order to get results. This was knowingly done because, presumably, the lack of results did not meet her woo expectations. She also did work on remote healing with Cancer patients. I am not sure of the details but if this "research" in any way interrupted real treatment then it is in the same league as Nazi "experiments" in the death camps. Psironically she died of a brain tumor that was proof against any woo healing approaches. She was a dangerous woman and we are all better off now that she is dead. I am unclear as to whether Schwartz is a fraud or incompetant. Does repeated incompetence, when one is corrected, yield fraud? You judge.

Do you consider SI to be a scientific peer reviewed journal?

Sports Illustrated?

Do you believe BillHoyt's (paraphrasing is mine) 'we can statistically analyze only the letter J to help determine if a medium is cold reading' to be sound?
Do you believe it is more difficult for an admitted cold reader to analyze a transcript of a reading and say this is where and how the sitter was fooled, or actually pretend to be a medium themselves and try to fool people under the same experimental conditions that the mediums go through?

I suspect that the former is far easier. Having cold read myself (quite successfully, I might add) there is an aspect of "performance" to it that makes it stressful. Practice makes perfect.

Do you believe the quality of parapsychological experiments is significantly improving over time?

Yes and no. While paradigms might improve (why they "improve" from lousey to sorta good in the first place is an interesting question.) we find that believers take solice in the resultant irreproducable minimum of noise as being indicative of an effect. So, these woo-effects that have been around since the beginning, that have been reported over human history, that are real and big are now, with better designs, only to be found in the fifth decimal place. Hmmmmmmm. The problem is that when you deal with believers, negative results are not in the decision set. The horse is really dead, they just don't realize it.

Do you agree that the statistical methods and theory are sound in many parapsycholgical papers?

Theory? Please give us one. I doubt that you can. The stats suck. Targ is a good example. There was some other prayer research that I read that did the same thing (ie. fishing without an appropriate significance level adjustment.). The misuse of Meta analysis has been dealt with in detail on these forums. The problem is that the researchers "know" the result in advance of the data and the stats are simply a minor irretation. As an analyst friend of mine is wont to say "you can torture data to say anything". Oh, yes, that silly paper that you posted on Vegas was a prime example of sh!tty stats, as you know from the thread.

Recently a skeptic of telepathy didn't do so good of a job presenting the case and evidence why it is apparently bunk (the majority of the audience thought the pro-telepathy evidence was far better). How would you do better presenting?

Unaware of this. I guess (being an American and all) I would get a telepath and sit him in front of the audience and explain to him he was either going to perform well or get his brains blown out. It would be riveting to be sure. Though the ending would not be in much doubt

Are there cold readers who are claiming they can fool sitters under Schwartz's experimental conditions?

Unknown to me. Recognize that reproducing Schwartz's "experimental" conditions would require a degree of performance art. The environment he created was part of the so called design. Bad stuff.

In what branches of science/study do you feel magicians are necessary to observe or plan/design experiments?

In para-psychology. Have you ever taken part in an experiment? As a subject or a researcher? No. If you had you would not ask this. Going down this road is really a bad attempt at misdirection.

Do you believe colleges and universities should hire on magicians as professors or faculty members or consultants?

Yes. I think that critical thinking courses would benefit.

If BillHoyt can critique my knowledge of mathematics and statistics, isn't he implying that he has knowledge of mathematics and statistics, knowledge that I can then question him on as he questioned me on?

He might have knowledge of an aspect that you don't. Dunno, ask him

Don't you find it interesting that NIST scientists who design tests for non-randomness said (after I emailed it to them) that mine was similar to one they have, yet BillHoyt refers to it as a "crap smear"?

Sorry, not enough context to answer

Do you believe one cannot prove a negative?

Prove? No. Make a rational decision based on information to hand and behave as though it were proven? Yes. You cross streets, don't you?

If the laws of physics are determined by physical objects, and physical objects are always changing, does this imply that the laws of physics are changing (albeit slowly)?

Are they? Seems rather too vague to answer

What should my next move be in the chess game in the Puzzle section?

I just telepathed the answer

[/B]

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Just to prove you do NOT pay attention at times, and therefore your list items are moot, in this very thread I've already stated that I do have opinons of Schwartz

So, where are they?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
(which are not the topic. As I've said, the facts themselves are)

You do not decide what is the "topic". If you bring something up, that can be the topic.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
and I've already stated I have read Schwartz's book (read my responses to Garrette. What can I say, you must have forgot what you read so carefully over...)

Here's your own quote:

"but I've read it in increments at a local bookstore."

You call that "reading a book"?? It is 364 pages, with some pretty densely written appendices.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
and in response to your "Did you read the transcripts and the analyses?" question I already said: "Yes, and you're not addressing...", so again I answered you.

No, you did not. You claimed you had read it, but you did not address anything in those transcripts and analyses.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Just to keep you on your toes, as you apparently need it, given that all 5 of your list questions were already addresed, since I'm a fast typer, from now on I will always ask at least twice the amount of questions you ask to me.

I will then, of course, constantly provide links to them in future discussions with you.

Count on it.

Oh, I cannot wait! You see, it will become extremely clear who are willing to answer questions and who are not.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why did you ignore my answers and then ask me the same questions again?

Because you have not answered them.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you feel that "triple blinding" makes sense?

Show me the definition of "triple blinding".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Where did Schwartz say that he believes in the Tooth Fairy?

Who claims that Schwartz says he believes in the Tooth Fairy?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How is my your example of an astrologer you squabbled with any where close to satisfying my request of recent (post 1980's) examples of skeptics pretending they are psychic or examples of deliberate fraud in parapsychology?

You are moving the goal posts. Now, it is not merely deliberate fraud in parapsychology.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you consider SI to be a scientific peer reviewed journal?

Depends on what "SI" is. Do you mean Skeptical Inquirer?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe BillHoyt's (paraphrasing is mine) 'we can statistically analyze only the letter J to help determine if a medium is cold reading' to be sound?

I'm sorry, I prefer to deal with actual quotes in context, instead of your paraphrasings.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe it is more difficult for an admitted cold reader to analyze a transcript of a reading and say this is where and how the sitter was fooled, or actually pretend to be a medium themselves and try to fool people under the same experimental conditions that the mediums go through?

I cannot see why these two are exclusive. Please explain why.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe the quality of parapsychological experiments is significantly improving over time?

To a degree, yes. In some cases, the controls have gotten better. Unfortunately, that has resulted in weaker results. As one expect, if the signal is just noise.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you agree that the statistical methods and theory are sound in many parapsycholgical papers?

I am not a statistician. Those that have knowledge claim that in some papers, the stats are sound. You must take it up with them.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Recently a skeptic of telepathy didn't do so good of a job presenting the case and evidence why it is apparently bunk (the majority of the audience thought the pro-telepathy evidence was far better). How would you do better presenting?

What skeptic of telepathy are we talking about? I cannot answer, until I know how the presentation was devised.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Are there cold readers who are claiming they can fool sitters under Schwartz's experimental conditions?

Yes. Garrette. You know that.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In what branches of science/study do you feel magicians are necessary to observe or plan/design experiments?

Those that do not have hard data "loud" enough to be independently verified by others. But, in a perfect world, all of them.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe colleges and universities should hire on magicians as professors or faculty members or consultants?

Depends on the field.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If BillHoyt can critique my knowledge of mathematics and statistics, isn't he implying that he has knowledge of mathematics and statistics, knowledge that I can then question him on as he questioned me on?

You'll have to ask BillHoyt for his statistical credentials.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Don't you find it interesting that NIST scientists who design tests for non-randomness said (after I emailed it to them) that mine was similar to one they have, yet BillHoyt refers to it as a "crap smear"?

I haven't followed that.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe one cannot prove a negative?

A negative claim cannot be proven.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If the laws of physics are determined by physical objects, and physical objects are always changing, does this imply that the laws of physics are changing (albeit slowly)?

Are physical objects always changing? In what ways?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What should my next move be in the chess game in the Puzzle section?

No idea. I don't play chess. I haven't participated in the thread.

It is fine with me, if you want to ask me questions, but please make them relevant to something I have said, done or claimed. A lot of your questions has to deal with your problems with other people, with what they have - or may not have - said.

Perhaps you could make an effort to distinguish between your beef with me, and your (many, it seems) beef with others?

BillHoyt

26th January 2004, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

What is triple blinding? I know what double blinding is but what is the third party you blind?

Refer to the Paul Bethke thread. :D

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Ed
It occurred to me recently that you can prove that Schwartz actually does believe in the Tooth Fairy. In his book he mentions how in thinking about stories, we create info-energy systems that can take on a life of their own. In my review of the book, I mentioned how that would mean that Santa, Ronald McDonald, Freddy Kruger, and Romeo, would then all exist as these info-energy system "spirits." In private correspondence with Schwartz, he agreed with that statement, that his theory predicts the existence of such beings.
Now, the Tooth Fairy has been in many cartoons, jokes, stories, and commercials over the years. Therefore Schwartz's theory actually predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy. As it is fairly certain that Schwartz believes in his theory, and his theory predicts the existence of the Tooth Fairy, therefore Schwartz must believe in the Tooth Fairy. "

He said "can", not "do". I don't know what Schwartz's arguments are, and I'm very sure, in common with most other "skeptics", you cherry picked an isolated statement which might well not be so ludicrous in context. But obviously we cannot instantiate a physical existent purely from thinking about it, or through our imagination etc. Now if he were talking about the afterlife realm that might be a different thing.

But he wasn't?? :confused:

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Ed
[Elizabeth Targ was a fraud.

Substantiate your allegation please.

Her AIDs/Prayer research was unblinded during analysis in order to get results.

References please.

This was knowingly done because, presumably, the lack of results did not meet her woo expectations. She also did work on remote healing with Cancer patients. I am not sure of the details but if this "research" in any way interrupted real treatment

Why on earth should it have done?

then it is in the same league as Nazi "experiments" in the death camps. Psironically she died of a brain tumor that was proof against any woo healing approaches.

It not only constitutes no proof, it also constitutes no evidence.

She was a dangerous woman and we are all better off now that she is dead.

Well Ed, I honestly think you are a dangerous person, that all skeptics are dangerous people. They are imposing their model of reality on people and arrogantly asserting that it is obviously correct (eg Towlies sentiments express this very well). This model of reality asserts that we are material creatures living in a material world, that we are essentially machines with no purpose to our existence, that soon we will cease to exist forevermore. Furthermore, that everything we ever experience, including our most profound emotions such as love, is literally identical to chemicals in the brain (not that such chemicals act as a catalyst). And what is perhaps worse, in this very brief life, we do not even possess any free will, and that everything we ever do is just simply a consequrnce of slavishly following an algorithm. And yet the justification of this model is philosophically unintelligible and ignores a great deal of evidence!

Yes I would say that you and other skeptics are very dangerous people. We would all be much better of if all the skeptics in the world were to suddenly die. Should one therefore wish this? No, I'm not a scumbag like you. Skeptics are dangerous people because they influence those less intelligent than themselves. But I can at least do my bit by coming on here and showing how vacuous all their arguments actually are. And I do that willingly.

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well Ed, I honestly think you are a dangerous person, that all skeptics are dangerous people. They are imposing their model of reality on people and arrogantly asserting that it is obviously correct (eg Towlies sentiments express this very well). This model of reality asserts that we are material creatures living in a material world, that we are essentially machines with no purpose to our existence, that soon we will cease to exist forevermore. Furthermore, that everything we ever experience, including our most profound emotions such as love, is literally identical to chemicals in the brain (not that such chemicals act as a catalyst). And what is perhaps worse, in this very brief life, we do not even possess any free will, and that everything we ever do is just simply a consequrnce of slavishly following an algorithm. And yet the justification of this model is philosophically unintelligible and ignores a great deal of evidence!

Yes I would say that you and other skeptics are very dangerous people. We would all be much better of if all the skeptics in the world were to suddenly die. Should one therefore wish this? No, I'm not a scumbag like you. Skeptics are dangerous people because they influence those less intelligent than themselves. But I can at least do my bit by coming on here and showing how vacuous all their arguments actually are. And I do that willingly.

Saved for posterity.

Kerberos

26th January 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Skeptics are dangerous people because they influence those less intelligent than themselves.
Apparently not. After all, we haven't managed to change your mind. :D

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe the quality of parapsychological experiments is significantly improving over time?

Claus
To a degree, yes. In some cases, the controls have gotten better. Unfortunately, that has resulted in weaker results. As one expect, if the signal is just noise.

No they haven't so far as I've been able to ascertain. I'm sure you can find isolated instants where they have, but I do not believe the preponderance of parapsychological research has.

BillHoyt

26th January 2004, 07:28 AM

Garrette

26th January 2004, 07:56 AM

The vacuous arguments of skeptics? You are a treat, Ian.

The more I read your debates, the less impressed I become.

Your arguments are nice, and your thoughts have at some point touched on reality, but they are ultimately without substance.

You play well to the crowd, but the referee calls foul.

You remind me very much of a 19 year old man who was already a black belt in a Taekwondo school I joined (after many years of learning a mish-mash of styles from many informal sources without gaining a belt in any).

This young man was beautiful to watch when he demonstrated his forms. His movements were smooth and elegant; he changed facing without seeming to move his feet; his flexibility astounds me even in memory; he never waivered in his balance; he always extended fully.

One day we sparred using tournament rules. He beat me badly.

Another day we free sparred. He had no chance. I could have killed him if I liked. Easily. He was angry, confused, and in denial. He insisted I didn't really win because there was no way to score it or judge it. If it were a tournament, he protested, he would have won.

But I never suggested otherwise. I expected to lose the fight under tournament rules, and I expected to win the free fight.

Your philosophy is the world under tournament rules. It predicts nothing except that the world under tournament rules operates as if it is under tournament rules, but you refuse to look out the window where real fights happen daily and outcomes that matter are determined.

At some point, a rock will break that window and all your rules will fall to those who do not respect them, regardless how loudly you praise them.

You are that young man, Ian. You are the pretty boy of philosophers. You know form and you know content, but you have applied them under tournament rules while ignoring brutal reality.

Philosophy is a wondrous mental exercise and can point to areas to investigate, but it must always bow before the terrible tyrant of truth.

I am not as adept in this intellectual arena as I am in the physical one, so perhaps I am not the one to demonstrate your emptiness, but I am adept enough to recognize when someone else demonstrates it and when they have knocked you off your horse of unfounded conceit.

BillHoyt is only one of several who have done it to you. Ed is another. If you had the capacity to learn and not just bluster you would be able to list for yourself still others who have done it.

It doesn’t bother me if I am not on that list. I don’t pretend to greater knowledge or intelligence than I have, nor am I so insecure as to think that all my thoughts are wrong if I can not out debate a pretty boy under tournament rules.

I’ll gladly admit you can sometimes out argue me, but my response will be to trundle off to the kitchen for more popcorn before coming back to watch the “Ian Gets Deflated Without Knowing It” show.

Ta

Interesting Ian

26th January 2004, 08:25 AM

To Garrette,

:wow2: never realised you were a babbling psychopathic loon! :( :confused: I'd better make sure I'm always polite to you!

Another day we free sparred. He had no chance. I could have killed him if I liked. Easily.

I hope you don't tell many people this. You'll discover that people will make polite excuses and never contact you again! :eek:

Your philosophy is the world under tournament rules. It predicts nothing except that the world under tournament rules operates as if it is under tournament rules, but you refuse to look out the window where real fights happen daily and outcomes that matter are determined.

Yup, you're clueless at what philosophy is all about. You express the sentiments of drunken idiots in pubs. If intellectual argumentation is so unimportant then go and live your life of base pleasures fighting with people. But be considerate and only fight your own kind.

I am adept enough to recognize when someone else demonstrates it and when they have knocked you off your horse of unfounded conceit.

BillHoyt is only one of several who have done it to you.

Isn't BillHoyt's demonstration of his unadulterated idiocy and lack of comprehension in this very thread not ample demonstration to you that he could never outargue even the most starry eyed believer?

I'm not quite sure if you're taking the piss or not. BillHoyt?? For your sake, I sincerely hope you're not.

Lucianarchy

26th January 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
The vacuous arguments of skeptics? You are a treat, Ian.

The more I read your debates, the less impressed I become.

Your arguments are nice, and your thoughts have at some point touched on reality, but they are ultimately without substance.

You play well to the crowd, but the referee calls foul.

You remind me very much of a 19 year old man who was already a black belt in a Taekwondo school I joined (after many years of learning a mish-mash of styles from many informal sources without gaining a belt in any).

This young man was beautiful to watch when he demonstrated his forms. His movements were smooth and elegant; he changed facing without seeming to move his feet; his flexibility astounds me even in memory; he never waivered in his balance; he always extended fully.

One day we sparred using tournament rules. He beat me badly.

Another day we free sparred. He had no chance. I could have killed him if I liked. Easily. He was angry, confused, and in denial. He insisted I didn't really win because there was no way to score it or judge it. If it were a tournament, he protested, he would have won.

But I never suggested otherwise. I expected to lose the fight under tournament rules, and I expected to win the free fight.

Your philosophy is the world under tournament rules. It predicts nothing except that the world under tournament rules operates as if it is under tournament rules, but you refuse to look out the window where real fights happen daily and outcomes that matter are determined.

At some point, a rock will break that window and all your rules will fall to those who do not respect them, regardless how loudly you praise them.

You are that young man, Ian. You are the pretty boy of philosophers. You know form and you know content, but you have applied them under tournament rules while ignoring brutal reality.

Philosophy is a wondrous mental exercise and can point to areas to investigate, but it must always bow before the terrible tyrant of truth.

I am not as adept in this intellectual arena as I am in the physical one, so perhaps I am not the one to demonstrate your emptiness, but I am adept enough to recognize when someone else demonstrates it and when they have knocked you off your horse of unfounded conceit.

BillHoyt is only one of several who have done it to you. Ed is another. If you had the capacity to learn and not just bluster you would be able to list for yourself still others who have done it.

It doesn’t bother me if I am not on that list. I don’t pretend to greater knowledge or intelligence than I have, nor am I so insecure as to think that all my thoughts are wrong if I can not out debate a pretty boy under tournament rules.

I’ll gladly admit you can sometimes out argue me, but my response will be to trundle off to the kitchen for more popcorn before coming back to watch the “Ian Gets Deflated Without Knowing It” show.

Ta

All this, from a guy who couldn't even get a simple email address to Dr Schwartz right, and who sat on it for months wondering why he hadn't a response yet. :rolleyes:

Ed's comments about Dr Targ were sick. Do you agree with them?

Peskanov

26th January 2004, 08:37 AM

Ian,

Well Ed, I honestly think you are a dangerous person, that all skeptics are dangerous people. They are imposing their model of reality on people and arrogantly asserting that it is obviously correct (eg Towlies sentiments express this very well).

D*mn, I believed rational was your creation, another of your sockpuppets. I would be very disapointed to find this is not the case...

Garrette

26th January 2004, 08:54 AM

All quotations originally posted by Ian:

never realised you were a babbling psychopathic loon! I'd better make sure I'm always polite to you!

No need to worry. Remember, I don't kill people even when I easily can...

I hope you don't tell many people this. You'll discover that people will make polite excuses and never contact you again!

Because I refrain from excessive force?

Yup, you're clueless at what philosophy is all about. You express the sentiments of drunken idiots in pubs.

I never claimed philosophical expertise. I'm only claiming you're misapplying yours.

If I recall, the sentiments of drunken idiots in pubs are what you were expressing on this forum about 24 hours ago, though I may have my timing off a bit.

If intellectual argumentation is so unimportant then go and live your life of base pleasures fighting with people. But be considerate and only fight your own kind

It appears you're rattled. Where did I say it is unimportant? By my own kind I take it you mean those who do not mistake posturing for reality?

Isn't BillHoyt's demonstration of his unadulterated idiocy and lack of comprehension in this very thread not ample demonstration to you that he could never outargue even the most starry eyed believer?

If he demonstrated it, I'd admit it. He hasn't.

I'm not quite sure if you're taking the piss or not. BillHoyt?? For your sake, I sincerely hope you're not.

I am uncertain as to the meaning, but I thank you for your concern.

BillHoyt

26th January 2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
I am uncertain as to the meaning, but I thank you for your concern.

British colloquialism for "not serious."

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
All this, from a guy who couldn't even get a simple email address to Dr Schwartz right, and who sat on it for months wondering why he hadn't a response yet. :rolleyes:

Oh, the irony....Ol' MaxDonald had a farm... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870289492#post1870289492)

BillHoyt

26th January 2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Oh, the irony....Ol' MaxDonald had a farm... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870289492#post1870289492)

Now I know why the girl at the window couldn't stop laughing when I ordered a Big Max.

Garrette

26th January 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy:

All this, from a guy who couldn't even get a simple email address to Dr Schwartz right, and who sat on it for months wondering why he hadn't a response yet.

Is it really a revelation to you that people make mistakes, even egregiously inane ones, dumb ones, inconceivable ones?

Or is it only inconceivable that some people admit mistakes?

I suspect it is more the latter as you seem incapable of it.

Remember, Luci/Pete, that I didn't just admit to this stupid blunder, I'm the one who brought it to others' attention so they would not unfairly blame Professor Schwartz for something that was my fault, even though I have no respect for Schwartz as a scientist or scholar. It would have been quite easy for me to hide my mistake.

I suppose it is possible you would have acted in the same fashion under similar circumstances.

Possible.

Yes.

I remind myself that it really must be at least possible.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy:

Ed's comments about Dr Targ were sick. Do you agree with them?

I assume you mean the one about the world being better off with her dead?

I have no idea why this is relevant, but I'll answer.

I honestly have no idea. I know very little of Dr. Elizabeth Targ. The little I do know leads me to believe that she is at best highly gullible and incompetent and at worst a malicious fraud, but I do not have enough information or enough certainty to judge in the manner you are asking.

Nor am I avoiding the question. I have no problem admitting that I feel there are people who will leave the world a better place when they are dead. Examples in the past tense are easier to give, such as Hitler.

Do you, Luci/Pete, think there are people about whom it can be said that the world would be better off if they were dead?

Garrette

26th January 2004, 09:19 AM

So if "taking the piss" means "not serious", then Ian double-negatived it?

I'm not quite sure if you're taking the piss or not. BillHoyt?? For your sake, I sincerely hope you're not.

So he hopes I wasn't not serious? Hmmm.....

In any case, I think I was leaving the piss, er, I mean I was serious.

Still am.

26th January 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

No, I'm not a scumbag like you.

Excellent. A true appraisal of my worth. To the less crass a "scumbag" is otherwise known as a prophylctic, an object whose function is to prevent disease and pregnancy and, on occasion, to make the sexual act more pleasurable. For this metaphor, I thank you Ian. My nature, in your view, is entirely beneficant.

Which, of course, begs the question of what is Ian.

Ian, you are an intellectual bully. You engage in purile arguments with little wit and less knowledge than you would have us believe. You mouth platitudes and shy away when pushed. You put forward positions that are supported by air. You are vacuous and dismissable.

Overall, Ian, you are not terribly bright.

One man's beneficent opinion.

26th January 2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Garrette

I assume you mean the one about the world being better off with her dead?

I have no idea why this is relevant, but I'll answer.

I honestly have no idea. I know very little of Dr. Elizabeth Targ. The little I do know leads me to believe that she is at best highly gullible and incompetent and at worst a malicious fraud, but I do not have enough information or enough certainty to judge in the manner you are asking.

Nor am I avoiding the question. I have no problem admitting that I feel there are people who will leave the world a better place when they are dead. Examples in the past tense are easier to give, such as Hitler.

Do you, Luci/Pete, think there are people about whom it can be said that the world would be better off if they were dead?

Past tense, Garrett, past tense. She went out in a veil of woo-woo incense.

Nothing befitted her as much in life as the leaving of it.

BillHoyt

26th January 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
So if "taking the piss" means "not serious", then Ian double-negatived it?

So he hopes I wasn't not serious? Hmmm.....

In any case, I think I was leaving the piss, er, I mean I was serious.

Still am.

Well, I looked it up, and it is more pointed than I had originally thought. This source (http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-tak2.htm) says it means to deflate somebody. To make sense of Ian's paragraph, then, I think he means you are trying to deflate him by what you said.

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 10:25 AM

Erasmus Montanus is a play by the Danish/Norwegian playwright Ludvig Holberg, written in 1723. The subject of the comedy is education - what do we need it for? This was written in the Age of Enlightenment, and Holberg creates a number of very funny characters, each designed to hold various views.

The leading character is a young man, Rasmus Berg. He has studied at the university, and is coming home to his family. He thinks that the height of education is to win a "dispute" (discussion). He is so infatuated with his own knowledge, that he insists on being called "Erasmus Montanus" - latin for his name. Latin was, in those days, the language of education.

He can use logic anyway he sees fit, and one of the key scenes is where he "proves" that his own mother is a stone.

Erasmus: "A stone cannot fly."
Mother: "That is the truth, unless one throws it."
Erasmus: "You cannot fly."
Mother: "That is the truth."
Erasmus: "Ergo, is Mother a stone?"
(The mother begins to cry)
Erasmus: "Why does Mother cry?"
Mother: "Oh, I am so afraid that I am turning into a stone, I can feel my legs go cold!"
Erasmus: "Be satisfied, Mother, I shall at once make you into a human again. A stone cannot think or speak."
Mother: "That is the truth. I don't know if I can think, but speak, I cannot!"
Erasmus: "Mother can speak."
Mother: "Yes, thank God, like a poor peasant wife, I can speak!"
Erasmus: "Good. Ergo, Mother is no stone."

Erasmus is later in trouble, because he finds himself up against someone who has both studied and is smart.

Ian is an "Erasmus Montanus."

TLN

26th January 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
He can use logic anyway he sees fit, and one of the key scenes is where he "proves" that his own mother is a stone.

Wow, classic! What an exellent example that sums up all things Ian.

T'ai Chi

26th January 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, where are they?

Already told you in last post.

You do not decide what is the "topic". If you bring something up, that can be the topic.

When I in fact bring up the topic of what Schwartz said, I do decide the topic.

You call that "reading a book"?? It is 364 pages, with some pretty densely written appendices.

Yes, I do. I said I read it. I read it in its entirely. I read it. I read it about 30 or so pages at a time. You cannot say that I didn't read it. I remember it being more near 400 pages.

No, you did not.

That is a wrong. In response to your "Did you read the transcripts and the analyses?" question I already said: "Yes, and you're not addressing...", so again I answered you that YES I did read them.

Because you have not answered them.

Wrong.

Show me the definition of "triple blinding".

That is not answering the question of "Do you feel that triple-blinding makes sense?" Claus, but you know that...

Who claims that Schwartz says he believes in the Tooth Fairy?

Yawn.

You are moving the goal posts. Now, it is not merely deliberate fraud in parapsychology.

You have failed to address the question.

Depends on what "SI" is. Do you mean Skeptical Inquirer?

Of course, so answer the question please.

I'm sorry, I prefer to deal with actual quotes in context, instead of your paraphrasings.

You read the entire thread I refer to.

I cannot see why these two are exclusive. Please explain why.

You did not answer the question.

What skeptic of telepathy are we talking about? I cannot answer, until I know how the presentation was devised.

Again, you read the thread I refer to.

You'll have to ask BillHoyt for his statistical credentials.

Evade. I am asking YOU what YOU think on the issue, hence me asking YOU a question. Replace the name "BillHoyt" with any name you like.

Are physical objects always changing? In what ways?

You know very well you don't answer questions by asking questions.

Perhaps you could make an effort to distinguish between your beef with me, and your (many, it seems) beef with others?

You answered a couple questions, but you didn't answer more. I don't have any beefs, just engaging in a little turn about is fair play here.

Lists are fun aren't they?

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 12:01 PM

T'ai Chi,

It is obvious that you have no intention of discussing honestly. It is obvious that you do not answer questions. It is obvious that you have no answers.

You are nothing but a troll. A very boring one, too, as well as one of very little intelligence. You treat serious issues as if they were merely toys, and complain when you are not taken seriously.

Lucianarchy

26th January 2004, 12:29 PM

So, getting back to your original question, Claus:

The "difference", is that cold readers will not replicate under the same conditions as John.

why is that, Claus?

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
So, getting back to your original question, Claus:

The "difference", is that cold readers will not replicate under the same conditions as John.

why is that, Claus?

I'm sorry, I don't recall asking that "original" question. Perhaps you can show me where?

And, while we are at the questions, please answer the questions in the thread "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

T'ai Chi

26th January 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

It is obvious that you have no intention of discussing honestly. It is obvious that you do not answer questions. It is obvious that you have no answers.

You are nothing but a troll. A very boring one, too, as well as one of very little intelligence. You treat serious issues as if they were merely toys, and complain when you are not taken seriously.

Saved for posterity.

You still have some questions to answer.

Someone doesn't like the taste of their own medicine....

thaiboxerken

26th January 2004, 01:38 PM

The "difference", is that cold readers will not replicate under the same conditions as John.

why is that, Claus?

You mean in a staged environment in which the replays can be editted to depict factual or fictional stories? Cold readers have and do replicate this. If you watch Penn and Teller's BS, it was done very nicely on one of their episodes.

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Saved for posterity.

You still have some questions to answer.

Someone doesn't like the taste of their own medicine....

Oh, please! :rolleyes:

You want to drag me into your beef with other people, you cannot even define what you are asking about, and you invent problems, so you can create a list of questions for me?

Try to take this a bit more seriously, kiddo. Or is this just a game to you? A droll pastime, in which you try to pit your wits against other people here?

If so, you fail miserably. If not, try to stick to the serious issues.

I have no time for your childish games. You are nothing but a troll. If you want to create a list of questions, at least come up with something else than this tripe.

NoZed Avenger

26th January 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Frankly, I have a hard time taking that opinion seriously. Do you actually hold that opinion, or are you just throwing out stuff to provoke responses?

Banachek did some absolutely amazing mentalism at the meeting. I am a hobbyist and have followed magic for more than 15 years now. I have numerous books, belong to 2 magic organziations, have done shows for money. I don't suck at it.

I will tell you now that not only can I not emulate one of the effects from the meeting; I still have no idea how it was done. He did it that well. By your reasoning, since I cannot emulate his performance to the same level, he obviously has spooky magic powers.

Similarly, Jamy Ian Swiss sis an ambitious card routine during the evening. I know several routines for that. While I have not put together a routine, I am familiar with the sleights involved. Even when I cannot see what happened, I can usually reconstruct it.

He either had a move that I have never come across, or did an old move so well that I could not catch him at it, even knowing what to look for. Since I cannot perform his routine, he obviously has been possessed by the devil.

And, while we're at it, why do I suspect that even if someone managed to overcome the problems with trying to follow Schwartz' protocals precisely -- problems noted by Garrette and Marc/Dogwood previosuly, among others -- you'd be one of the first in line saying "Just because it can be done with non-paranormal means doesn't mean that the psychics tested don't have real powers"?

And you know something -- it wouldn't. Any number of magicians bending spoons doesn't actually prove anything conclusive about Geller; any number of successful cold readers don't actually prove anything conclusive about any alleged mediums.

I guess -- since any 'proof' of the negative proposition put forward by the skeptics can be immediately dismissed as non-conclusive -- that its a good thing that the burden of proof remains firmly on the claimant to show that paranormal events or powers exist.

Schwartz' burden. JE's burden. Your burden. Not mine.

T'ai Chi

26th January 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

(snip)
You are nothing but a troll. If you want to create a list of questions, at least come up with something else than this tripe.

You can complain all you want, but you have still not answered several questions.

Just so you know.

CFLarsen

26th January 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You can complain all you want, but you have still not answered several questions.

Just so you know.

But of course I haven't! I am not denying that at all.

But tell me this:

How can I answer a question like "Do you feel that triple-blinding makes sense?", if you cannot even tell me what "triple-blinding" is?

How can I answer a question like "Where did Schwartz say that he believes in the Tooth Fairy?", if you cannot even tell me if anyone claimed that he did?

To pick a few.

Asking questions like that is not very smart, T'ai Chi. It's actually quite stupid.

I really hope you can see that. But I seriously doubt it.

Clancie

26th January 2004, 09:22 PM

Posted by !Xx-Rational-xX!

Skeptics,

To properly crush nonsense we need to resort to lying and making sh*t up, ruthless personal attacks, misrepresenting the opposition’s views, avoiding questions, being vague, running around the issues, stating our opinions as fact, refusing to consider kooks arguments, etc! This may sound dishonest but it doesn’t matter because skeptics are supporting the ultimate proven truth (materialism)! We will resort to anything to defend science and the undeniable view of a physically closed universe with material minds which tend to get gullible!

You can’t have science without materialism!
Dear !Xx-Rational-xX!,

Thank you for sharing your wit and wisdom and brightening up my thread! :)

Sincerely,

Clancie

Kerberos

26th January 2004, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You can complain all you want, but you have still not answered several questions.

Just so you know.
Look who's talking, you still haven't managed to answer my single question: What is triple blinding? Once you have blinded both participants and the "scientists", who is there left to blind? You still haven't answered this very simple question, unless of course you think it has already been answered adequately by BillHoyt. :D

T'ai Chi

26th January 2004, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How can I answer a question like "Do you feel that triple-blinding makes sense?", if you cannot even tell me what "triple-blinding" is?

So you haven't heard of triple blinding, ok. Neither did Randi judging by his amazement "whatever that means" in response to Schwartz's use of the term, in this commentary:

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html.

A very quick search yielded this:

http://www.cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/hbookTriple_blind.htm

How can I answer a question like "Where did Schwartz say that he believes in the Tooth Fairy?", if you cannot even tell me if anyone claimed that he did?

Read that link too for the Tooth Fairy bit.

Sorry, I thought you read the commentaries.

T'ai Chi

26th January 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos

Look who's talking, you still haven't managed to answer my single question: What is triple blinding? Once you have blinded both participants and the "scientists", who is there left to blind? You still haven't answered this very simple question, unless of course you think it has already been answered adequately by BillHoyt. :D

No it couldn't have been answered by Bill as it is still very hot where I am.

Anywhoo, a "triple blind" refers to not only blinding the experimenters, and the experimentees, but also the evaluators.

If I'm not near the computer, and you need to know what a word means, you have my permission to go to Google and type it in and press return/enter and read what comes up. ;) ;) ;)

Kerberos

27th January 2004, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Anywhoo, a "triple blind" refers to not only blinding the experimenters, and the experimentees, but also the evaluators.
Hmmm. I don't quite get it. How can you analyze results for statistical significancy, without knowing what the correct answer is? That information doesn't seem to be avaliable from google.
Originally posted by T'ai Chi

If I'm not near the computer, and you need to know what a word means, you have my permission to go to Google and type it in and press return/enter and read what comes up.
I really hate to repeat myself but : "Look who's talking". Let's take a look on one of the question you asked Claus:
Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Are there cold readers who are claiming they can fool sitters under Schwartz's experimental conditions?
You don't even have to use Google find the answer to this one. The answer is right here on this very thread. :eek: :eek:

Ersby

27th January 2004, 01:17 AM

(disregard this post)

CFLarsen

27th January 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So you haven't heard of triple blinding, ok. Neither did Randi judging by his amazement "whatever that means" in response to Schwartz's use of the term, in this commentary:

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html.

A very quick search yielded this:

http://www.cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/hbookTriple_blind.htm

I've heard about it, but I fail to see where the "triple-blind" comes in. Can you please explain how it works?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Read that link too for the Tooth Fairy bit.

Sorry, I thought you read the commentaries.

I did. A long time ago. There is no direct quote there about tooth fairies.

(I know where it is, though, but I am not doing your homework for you)

All this clearly shows that you do not understand the issues you are talking about, and you have no idea where to find the original quotes. You think you can go by hearsay and by throwing out fancy terms you have no idea what means.

Nice.

Interesting Ian

27th January 2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Posted by !Xx-Rational-xX!

Skeptics,

To properly crush nonsense we need to resort to lying and making sh*t up, ruthless personal attacks, misrepresenting the opposition’s views, avoiding questions, being vague, running around the issues, stating our opinions as fact, refusing to consider kooks arguments, etc! This may sound dishonest but it doesn’t matter because skeptics are supporting the ultimate proven truth (materialism)! We will resort to anything to defend science and the undeniable view of a physically closed universe with material minds which tend to get gullible!

You can’t have science without materialism!

Clancie
Dear !Xx-Rational-xX!,

Thank you for sharing your wit and wisdom and brightening up my thread!

I agree :) Did you see his post in the Penn thread last night?? Absolutely brilliant!

Hmmmm . . .you seem rather enthralled by him. I wonder if he's your sock puppet? ;) Maybe I should do a poll with all the possible suspects including myself! LOL

Kerberos

27th January 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I agree :) Did you see his post in the Penn thread last night?? Absolutely brilliant!
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Praising yourself is terribly bad form.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Hmmmm . . .you seem rather enthralled by him. I wonder if he's your sock puppet? ;) Maybe I should do a poll with all the possible suspects including myself! LOL
You'll have my vote.

BillHoyt

27th January 2004, 06:01 AM

Clancie

27th January 2004, 07:45 AM

Posted by Interesting Ian

I agree Did you see his post in the Penn thread last night?? Absolutely brilliant!
He's definitely one of the most original thinkers here!

Hmmmm . . .you seem rather enthralled by him.
Indeed I am! :) And I'm eagerly waiting for his book on superscientifisuperioricism (or whatever it's called, lol). I've got a great space on my bookshelf for it--right between "Flim-Flam" and "Why People Believe Weird Things". :)
I wonder if he's your sock puppet?
Don't I -wish- I was that clever! :)

voidx

27th January 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by !Xx-Rational-xX!

Skeptics,

To properly crush nonsense we need to resort to lying and making sh*t up, ruthless personal attacks, misrepresenting the opposition’s views, avoiding questions, being vague, running around the issues, stating our opinions as fact, refusing to consider kooks arguments, etc! This may sound dishonest but it doesn’t matter because skeptics are supporting the ultimate proven truth (materialism)! We will resort to anything to defend science and the undeniable view of a physically closed universe with material minds which tend to get gullible!

You can’t have science without materialism!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear !Xx-Rational-xX!,

Thank you for sharing your wit and wisdom and brightening up my thread! :)

Sincerely,

Clancie
Oh Please. Pervayer of horribly stereotypical bad skeptic parodies. If you're giving shout outs to Towelie for his above post then I suppose we can no longer expect you to complain too loudly about the horribly vague definitions of "woo-woo's" anymore then hmmm. 6 of one, half dozen of the other as they say. Although I will admit, this type of post is more his style. Anyone wanting a great example of Towelie trying to exercise his considerable "debating" talents should check out this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33852
I admit it gets silly towards the end, but its rather hard to take him seriously :). I eagerly await his inane response.