Since Mrs. Piper is Dismissed, Any Other Examples?

[TLN]

The Mrs. Piper example (which you can view here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36651)), offered as the best example of a genuine medium, was easily dismissed early in the conversation as categorically anecdotal. There’s no testing procedure or data to scrutinize, just stories about experiments, but no experiments themselves.

So, does anyone have another example of a genuine medium? So we don’t repeat the Mrs. Piper debacle let’s make a few things clear:

Stories are not evidence. Piles and piles of papers where the authors claim to have used “strict controls” and have eliminated cheating are nice, but without the testing protocol to examine we have only faith to go on.

A single source is not evidence. Multiple sources and peer reviewed and replicated experiments, complete with testing protocol and data (sorry Dr. Schwartz), are.

So… anyone?

[Denise]

What about all those cool ectoplasm mediums?!!! Can we talk about that?? Can we can we? Just kidding.

[Denise]

By medium, what are we talking about? Are we talking about people who are supposed to be talking to the dead? What about people like the pet psychic? She isn't claiming to talk to dead people but to animals that are alive. Some psychics claim to be in contact with aliens. So can you define what you mean by medium first. Sorry if this has been answered, haven't been on forum much.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Denise
By medium, what are we talking about? Are we talking about people who are supposed to be talking to the dead?

Well, I originally asked for the best "special hit" I could get and was given a name, Mrs. Piper, instead. Yes, I was originally interested in Edward style psychics who talk to dead people, but any psychic (or whatever euphemism you want to use) will do. (Except pet psychics. I don't suppose we can ask the dog for confirmation, can we?) I was attempting to deflect the conversation away from cold readers since it seems silly to me to bash on cold readers before we have an example of a "genuine medium" doing anything extraordinary.

[Denise]

Well we could discuss until we are blue in the face, but since none of these psychics seem interested in "proving" their abilities it's kind of worthless. Even if we analized a reading we would have to speak to the person who was the sitter to find out what they meant by such things as "I understand."

We could try and investigate or post about some of the mediums on paltalk, but they seem to give astrological type readings that could fit anyone. John Edward has been talked to death, and I guess the simple fact that he sucks watermelons on live tv points out to me that he is probably not talking to dead people.

We could talk about mediums that supposedly solved crimes, but I don't know any names off the top of my head. Probably because they got one good hit and convinced one cop but have been unsuccessful in other investigations.

[TLN]

Right, all of which makes me wonder why we waste so much time talking about colder readers and counting methods when no "psychic" has produced anything extraordinary.

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Well, I originally asked for the best "special hit" I could get and was given a name, Mrs. Piper, instead
Actually, that's not accurate, TLN. This is what you originally asked for (bolding added).
Posted by TLN

Shouldn't there also be some good demos of so-called mediumship? Where are they? The best "special hits" ever offered are still very weak. I am, of course, willing to be shown otherwise.
In response (to your request to know where some good demos of so-called mediumship are), I recommended Mrs. Piper's work. Her thousands of readings are available (especially in libraries near you), and well-documented.

That was my recommendation for mediumship demos since that, not "special hits", was what you asked for.

You found the suggestion to look at her work a worthless one, and I predict any other recommendations would soon meet the same fate. Good luck in your "search".

[Ed]

Originally posted by TLN

Stories are not evidence. Piles and piles of papers where the authors claim to have used “strict controls” and have eliminated cheating are nice, but without the testing protocol to examine we have only faith to go on.

And with the testing protocol, you have the word of a true believer. Some comfort.

A single source is not evidence. Multiple sources and peer reviewed and replicated experiments, complete with testing protocol and data (sorry Dr. Schwartz), are.

So… anyone?

Good luck.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
You found the suggestion to look at her work a worthless one, and I predict any other recommendations would soon meet the same fate. Good luck in your "search".

Clancie, perhaps you can tell me why a very old anecdote should constitute evidence.

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Clancie, perhaps you can tell me why a very old anecdote should constitute evidence.

Um, and perhaps you can tell me why you're turning my recommendation for what you asked to look at--mediumship demonstrations into a claim of providing you with "evidence" (i.e. replicable laboratory test with the kind of protocol you require, and peer review of the results).

I know you don't consider demonstrations of mediumship like Piper's "evidence". But, you asked for demos, and I've recommended that you go and read some of those that are considered the best.

And, not to be abrupt or anything, but I'm extremely bored by this topic which is painfully predictable (undoubtedly on both sides).

(Equally predictable is how effectively you dodged my request for cold reading demos--on the thread of that name--by changing the topic to mediumship demos.)

As I say, my boredom with the discussion has reached its limit... so...I'm off to other threads. Hopefully, someone else will discuss this topic further with you, if that's what you're looking for.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
(Equally predictable is how effectively you dodged my request for cold reading demos--on the thread of that name--by changing the topic to mediumship demos.)

Much like you dodge my request for a testing protocol that you claim to have seen, but somehow can't produce. (Clancie, just admit you've never seen any testing protocol; be brave for once.)

I'll honor your request for cold reading demos once you can show me a "special hit" that doesn't have a mundane explanation. It's silly to deflect the conversation to cold readers when "mediums" can't produce anything of substance.

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Much like you dodge my request for a testing protocol that you claim to have seen, but somehow can't produce. (Clancie, just admit you've never seen any testing protocol; be brave for once.)
(sigh) I have repeatedly told you how Gauld describes Hodgson's protocol (not by any means all-encompassing for thousands of sittings). Yes, that's all I've seen, but obviously your interest in it is much greater than mine as you are looking for protocol=scientific evidence. Therefore, I recommended that you go check the original documents to see if it is better described there--something you seem resistant to doing, though I have no idea why.

I'll honor your request for cold reading demos once you can show me a "special hit" that doesn't have a mundane explanation. It's silly to deflect the conversation to cold readers when "mediums" can't produce anything of substance.
Actually, I haven't seen you come up with mundane explanations for Piper's hits on names. Oh, wait. It must be the one that's always brought out when all else fails, "There's no evidence of it anywhere, but we know if it wasn't lucky guesses that she must have somehow been cheating."

Now, really. That's it from me on this! All! Finito! Adieu! :p

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
(sigh) I have repeatedly told you how Gauld describes Hodgson's protocol (not by any means all-encompassing for thousands of sittings). Yes, that's all I've seen, but obviously your interest in it is much greater than mine as you are looking for protocol=scientific evidence. Therefore, I recommended that you go check the original documents to see if it is better described there--something you seem resistant to doing, though I have no idea why.

So, in other words, you have no way of knowing that cheating was controlled for, you're just taking someone on their word.

You've never seen any testing protocol, you've heard someone's description of it, and not in any detail.

This is why you can't point me to a simple document. It's doesn't exist.

Clancie, you can claim that I'm not doing my part here, but that's simple nonsense and we both know it. I'm willing to be shown the protocol whenever you're ready. Of course, we both know it doesn't exist.

It's a wonder why you believe any of this stuff at all with such flimsy foundations.

[magicflute]

Well, you could test a pet psychic. Get 10 people and 10 dogs then have the pet psychic ask the dogs to tell her who their owner are! heheh

[magicflute]

Typical of Clancie, when the going gets tough, she gets going. I would love to sit her down at one of my old seance demonstration using the same controls you find in most psychic parlors. Oh my! Tables floating, ectoplasam, chills, trumpets, tambourines. While she is holding my hand and stepping on my feet! I can promice you that I use no confederate. I do all the stunts myself. :p

[The Mighty Thor]

This is why, without giving away what I suspected about the Mrs Piper case, I was asking if Clancie and Ian 'could go down that path.' i.e. Explain other (mundane) methods as to how Mrs Piper might get her information. Not one suggestion came from them, until after me and others had outlined some, which suggests very closed minds, or a refusal to even contemplate other explanations -- denial.

I was accused by Clancie of "posing as a superior intellect" when I'm sure she is aware that 'intellect' has nothing to do with this. The most intelligent of people are often more prone to deception by fraudsters. A bit of 'streetwise savvy' is often more valuable in detecting frauds and hoaxes.

And I now take exception to the 'posing' part -- only joking:)