Is Analyzing Medium/ColdReader Transcripts OK?

[T'ai Chi]

I've heard mixed feelings on this.

Is it ok for anyone to analyze medium/coldreader transcripts?
Only disbelievers in mediumship?
Only believers in mediumship?
Or.. ?

[Garrette]

It's not the person who performs the analysis that matters, it's the method used.

I suspect you know this.

[Ersby]

Yes, as long as the working is shown it should be fine.

[Ed]

Still not sure of the utility.

[Darat]

Whoever has the required skills.

T'ai Chi - What skills are needed?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat
Whoever has the required skills.

T'ai Chi - What skills are needed?

You brought up skills, why don't you tell us?

[Clancie]

I would say "Anyone", that is, anyone who can follow (your) precise directions, has patience, a good eye for detail, no emotional investment in the outcome one way or the other...oh, yes, and someone who is not easily bored (because I think analyzing two or three hundred transcripts, even if each person only does...ten...would be incredibly difficult for many people due to the boredom factor).

For me, even counting up hits/misses in the JE/LKL ones we argued over here was the mental equivalent of "nails on the chalkboard"...a particularly bad thing because it also makes it more likely for someone to make mistakes on the task.

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You brought up skills, why don't you tell us?

I have no idea what skills would be required just an opinion that to do a specific task normally requires particular skills. Therefore when looking for someone to do a task you look for someone with those skills.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
Still not sure of the utility.

Some ideas:

To have actual data, not just theories of how mediums and cold readers work.

To see how they are alike and how they differ, in reality, not just in theory.

To compare the claims of mediums and cold readers with their actual performances.

To have a spreadsheet that one could obtain the data from instead of again going through all the transcripts.

And more.

Aside: Ed, you seem to think it is wiser to only analyze the transcripts from live readings. I agree, but this as you know will of course create WAY less transcripts to analyze, but more meaningful data could be obtained. If the study I proposed only looks at live readings, something which I think sensible, the number of transcripts would probably be less than 50, and the project would then be tractable. :) Another drawback though is that there would probably only be a few if any transcripts by self proclaimed professional cold readers. :(

[magicflute]

Personally,I think more telling would be to analize the transcripts blinded to see if by analysis you can determine which of the transcripts belong to a coldreader and which belong to a psychic. This would be better than just trying to see which is more accurate unblinded since personal bias will always interfere.
Again, I know.. the methodology would still be a b**ch!
Interesting also would be to see how the 'believer' analysers results compare to the non-believer analyzers.

p.s. If this was suggested before, then...never mind! I have not had the oppotunity to read all the threads that relate to this issue.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I am not saying "live" just unedited

Some ideas:

To have actual data, not just theories of how mediums and cold readers work.

Can't say much if they are edited

To see how they are alike and how they differ, in reality, not just in theory.

Can't say much at all, if edited

To compare the claims of mediums and cold readers with their actual performances.

definately cannot say anything. Edited transcripts are only self referential. They are useless for any meaningful comparisons

To have a spreadsheet that one could obtain the data from instead of again going through all the transcripts.

And more.

Aside: Ed, you seem to think it is wiser to only analyze the transcripts from live readings. I agree, but this as you know will of course create WAY less transcripts to analyze, but more meaningful data could be obtained. If the study I proposed only looks at live readings, something which I think sensible, the number of transcripts would probably be less than 50, and the project would then be tractable. :) Another drawback though is that there would probably only be a few if any transcripts by self proclaimed professional cold readers. :(

Perhaps. A scientist would probably opt for a little good data than a boatful of dreck. If data is edited it is not a "sample" in any useful way. It is indicitive of only itself. We are dealing with research into the paranormal so I suppose my observations are irrelevant

[Ed]

In response to your poll: If you are designing this correctly it should be double blind. You are also, presumably, formally questiuoning the graders? Any systematic effects should be picked up then.

A little scarey that you are even asking this question.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
In response to your poll: If you are designing this correctly it should be double blind. You are also, presumably, formally questiuoning the graders? Any systematic effects should be picked up then.

A little scarey that you are even asking this question.

Ed, are you proposing that a non-experimental study should be double blind?

I will not be formally questioning the graders. I will be recording who did the grading and if they are believers or disbelievers in mediumship. Perhaps several people could grade the same transcript?

I think that it could be difficult to tell if a transcript is edited. How would you know Ed?

I think that I'll only consider transcripts from live readings for now; for now that is just Larry King Live as far as I know. This is good and bad; good because it eliminates the analyzing edited things that you are worried about (with good reasons) and makes the project MUCH more tractable, but bad because it basically eliminates readings from self proclaimed professional cold readers, which I don't like.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I will not be formally questioning the graders. I will be recording who did the grading and if they are believers or disbelievers in mediumship.

False dichotomy. What about those who are undecided, e.g. most skeptics (me included)?

I can understand why you are so secretive about your study, because everytime you lift the veil, there are nothing but holes to be found.

Better keep it secret, so nobody finds out just how much you are fumbling in the dark...shhh...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

False dichotomy. What about those who are undecided, e.g. most skeptics (me included)?


For a given point in time, Claus, one either believes in mediumship or they don't.


I can understand why you are so secretive about your study, because everytime you lift the veil, there are nothing but holes to be found.

Better keep it secret, so nobody finds out just how much you are fumbling in the dark...shhh...

Please inform us how I am fumbling around in secret when I am publicly asking people for their comments and advice..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
For a given point in time, Claus, one either believes in mediumship or they don't.

Patently false. I have no belief either way. I haven't seen any evidence that it exists, but I am open-minded about the possibility of it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please inform us how I am fumbling around in secret when I am publicly asking people for their comments and advice..

You never tell us how far you have gotten. You answer evasively, if at all. You keep critics on "ignore" (yet answer them). You want to distance your study from the scrutiny of the public. You want to keep things secret.

Hey, don't blame me for keeping it secret, T'ai Chi: You started it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Ed, are you proposing that a non-experimental study should be double blind?

If you want whatever it is that you are doing to be anything more than a curiosity, yes. What does "an experimental study" have to do with intellectual honesty? If anything you say is suspect because of how things were graded, what is the point? You do realize that this very question makes this thing suspect, don't you? If you are oblivious of the implications of a basic control, what other short cuts are being taken...See?

I will not be formally questioning the graders. I will be recording who did the grading and if they are believers or disbelievers in mediumship. Perhaps several people could grade the same transcript?

Yes. Some stab at a reliability measure would be nice. A more interesting study (that might be relevant) would be to have performed this study as a decoy and assess the relative quality of believer and non-believer grading. Made up transcripts would have served admirably in such a case. You might also have used the exact same transcripts identified as both "medium" and "cold reader". That would have been neat.

I think that it could be difficult to tell if a transcript is edited. How would you know Ed?

I am not sure whay this question is meaningful, perhaps you can explain. The larger issue which gives me additional pause is that you are asking in the first place. One the relsults are in and critisism is leveled on a point like this, saying "how could you know" shows a massive naiveaty regrading research. If it comes up it is an issue.

I think that I'll only consider transcripts from live readings for now; for now that is just Larry King Live as far as I know. This is good and bad; good because it eliminates the analyzing edited things that you are worried about (with good reasons) and makes the project MUCH more tractable, but bad because it basically eliminates readings from self proclaimed professional cold readers, which I don't like.

Good. It is usually a good idea to have a shake-down on the process anyway.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Patently false. I have no belief either way. I haven't seen any evidence that it exists, but I am open-minded about the possibility of it.


You can evaluate data and come to a conclusion, and that is fine, but at a point in time you either believe in it or you don't believe in it.

Claus, do you right now believe in mediumship? Yes or no?


You never tell us how far you have gotten. You answer evasively, if at all. You keep critics on "ignore" (yet answer them). You want to distance your study from the scrutiny of the public. You want to keep things secret.


I've said that things are still in the planning stage and about 25 transcripts have been gathered. Why you want to pretend some massive secrecy is going on here is beyond me.

[T'ai Chi]

If you want whatever it is that you are doing to be anything more than a curiosity, yes. What does "an experimental study" have to do with intellectual honesty? If anything you say is suspect because of how things were graded, what is the point? You do realize that this very question makes this thing suspect, don't you? If you are oblivious of the implications of a basic control, what other short cuts are being taken...See?


I think you might be oblivious here since you are proposing an observational study be double-blinded, hence me asking the question to you. Think about it for a bit..

There is also a problem with single blind, since if I take away the mediums' name from the transcript, and the person (Larry King for example) the medium was talking to, and the link to the transcript, someone can just Google for it and discover who it is pretty easily. How do you propose one gets around this?


Yes. Some stab at a reliability measure would be nice. A more interesting study (that might be relevant) would be to have performed this study as a decoy and assess the relative quality of believer and non-believer grading.


I'm not interested in trickery here Ed. I'm interested in studying the actual data, the actual performances of self proclaimed professional mediums and self proclaimed professional cold readres.


I am not sure whay this question is meaningful, perhaps you can explain. The larger issue which gives me additional pause is that you are asking in the first place. One the relsults are in and critisism is leveled on a point like this, saying "how could you know" shows a massive naiveaty regrading research. If it comes up it is an issue.


I'm asking because you go on about not analyzing edited transcripts. So I'm asking you how do you tell if a transcript is edited.


Good. It is usually a good idea to have a shake-down on the process anyway.


So would you agree or disagree that analzying only mediums' live transcripts is more informative than analyzing live and edited medium and cold reader transcripts? I tend to think so, but would also like some cold reader transcripts in there as well. Ah well. :P

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You can evaluate data and come to a conclusion, and that is fine, but at a point in time you either believe in it or you don't believe in it.

Why? I don't.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Claus, do you right now believe in mediumship? Yes or no?

I just told you: I have no belief either way. I haven't seen any evidence that it exists, but I am open-minded about the possibility of it.

Are you going to change how you record who did the grading to include those who are neither believers or disbelievers in mediumship?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I've said that things are still in the planning stage and about 25 transcripts have been gathered. Why you want to pretend some massive secrecy is going on here is beyond me.

But there is, T'ai Chi. You were the one who started keeping things secret. They still are.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I just told you: I have no belief either way. I haven't seen any evidence that it exists, but I am open-minded about the possibility of it.


Do you believe in mediumship Claus? Do you believe people who call themselves mediums can get messages from the souls of people who have died? Yes or no, no other choices.


Are you going to change how you record who did the grading to include those who are neither believers or disbelievers in mediumship?


Since such people don't exist, I don't have to worry about it.


But there is, T'ai Chi. You were the one who started keeping things secret. They still are.

Such as... ?

I'll remind you that you've still utterly failed to show me even one example in any science where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study, yet you believe I should be held to those very standards. Just one Claus, can you do it? Doubtful.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe in mediumship Claus? Do you believe people who call themselves mediums can get messages from the souls of people who have died? Yes or no, no other choices.

Sorry, I cannot answer it yes or no. I believe that this is also Clancie's stance.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Since such people don't exist, I don't have to worry about it.

But they do, T'ai Chi. They do. Me, Clancie. What are you going to do, exclude us? People have to be biased, to participate??

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Such as... ?

Show us all you have gotten so far.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'll remind you that you've still utterly failed to show me even one example in any science where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study, yet you believe I should be held to those very standards. Just one Claus, can you do it? Doubtful.

Are you doing science now??

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Sorry, I cannot answer it yes or no. I believe that this is also Clancie's stance.

But they do, T'ai Chi. They do. Me, Clancie. What are you going to do, exclude us? People have to be biased, to participate??


No, I'm not excluding anyone, just marking them down in a category that best fits their belief/nonbelief.

Based on what you have seen and how you understand the world to work, do you believe people calling themselves mediums can communicate with the souls of people who have died? Do you believe JVP, JE, and SB actually do what they claim to do, yes or no, which answer currently best fits your belief/nonbelief?


Show us all you have gotten so far.


Could you be much more specific? And see below..


Are you doing science now??

You evaded the question. It won't go away, and I won't allow you to attempt to hold me to higher standards than you hold anyone else:

You've still utterly failed to show me even one example in any science where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study, yet you believe I should be held to those very standards.

Just one Claus, can you do it?

Doubtful.

Also, have you contacted Radin and other authors for their full data sets (that you keep complaning that you haven't seen) yet??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, I'm not excluding anyone, just marking them down in a category that best fits their belief/nonbelief.

But why the dichotomy?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Based on what you have seen and how you understand the world to work, do you believe people calling themselves mediums can communicate with the souls of people who have died? Do you believe JVP, JE, and SB actually do what they claim to do, yes or no, which answer currently best fits your belief/nonbelief?

I am sorry, but since I haven't examined all "those people calling themselves mediums", nor are all those mediums examined, I cannot answer either yes or no.

I also find it extremly flawed if you only have us select between JVP, JE and SB. Why not the local medium down the corner?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Could you be much more specific? And see below..

No, I am sorry, because I have absolutely no clue what it is you are doing behind those closed doors!

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You evaded the question. It won't go away, and I won't allow you to attempt to hold me to higher standards than you hold anyone else:

You've still utterly failed to show me even one example in any science where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study, yet you believe I should be held to those very standards.

Just one Claus, can you do it?

Doubtful.

Why mention science, if your little project isn't science anyway?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Also, have you contacted Radin and other authors for their full data sets (that you keep complaning that you haven't seen) yet??

I am not the one pointing to the data, T'ai Chi. You are. Have you seen it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But why the dichotomy?


Do you believe people calling themselves mediums can communicate with the souls of people who have died Claus?

Can, for example, JE, JVP, and SB really do what they claim they can do?

Please inform us..


I am sorry, but since I haven't examined all "those people calling themselves mediums", nor are all those mediums examined, I cannot answer either yes or no.


Then you cannot answer Yes or No about anything you believe then according to your "logic".


I also find it extremly flawed if you only have us select between JVP, JE and SB. Why not the local medium down the corner?


As I mentioned numerous times and you trolled over, I am only interested in professional mediums and cold readers, not Mr. Medium Intraining or Mr. Armchair Skeptic, but the professionals in their trade. It is the same as if I was investigating the 3-point percentage of of basketball players; I wouldn't investigate the people playing basketball at the playground, but the pros.


No, I am sorry, because I have absolutely no clue what it is you are doing behind those closed doors!


Well, you'll have to be much more specific if you expect a response. Asking me to show you all is pretty vague. Could you please provide us even one example of where you asked a researcher to show you all and the results you got? Let us know...


Why mention science, if your little project isn't science anyway?


Claus, you are holding me to those standards.

Claus, you AVOIDED the question, AGAIN. Please answer it, it won't go away:

You've still failed to show me even one example in any science where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study, yet you believe I should be held to those very standards.

Just one Claus, can you do it?


I am not the one pointing to the data, T'ai Chi. You are.

You hypocrite, you are talking about the full data sets and complaining that you haven't seen them, yet you haven't even asked the researchers for them, yet you still complain, yet you are saying there is no data, etc.!

Typical armchair posturings. Nothing new.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe people calling themselves mediums can communicate with the souls of people who have died Claus?

Can, for example, JE, JVP, and SB really do what they claim they can do?

Please inform us..

I have given you my answer. What are you going to do, put me in a box, where I don't belong? That will do wonders for the credibility of your "study".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Then you cannot answer Yes or No about anything you believe then according to your "logic".

Depends on what you mean by "believe". Do I believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes, but it is more than a belief, it is a scientific fact.

You are extremely busy reducing everything you don't like to a "belief". You do it again and again.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As I mentioned numerous times and you trolled over, I am only interested in professional mediums and cold readers, not Mr. Medium Intraining or Mr. Armchair Skeptic, but the professionals in their trade. It is the same as if I was investigating the 3-point percentage of of basketball players; I wouldn't investigate the people playing basketball at the playground, but the pros.

But the psychic down the corner is a professional medium. So, why leave her out?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well, you'll have to be much more specific if you expect a response. Asking me to show you all is pretty vague. Could you please provide us even one example of where you asked a researcher to show you all and the results you got? Let us know...

No, just show us what you have got so far. I can't be specific because you won't tell us what you are hiding.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Claus, you are holding me to those standards. Claus, you AVOIDED the question, AGAIN. Please answer it, it won't go away:

You've still failed to show me even one example in any science where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study, yet you believe I should be held to those very standards.

Just one Claus, can you do it?

I am asking you why you compare science to your project. If it is science, then you got a BIG problem. If it is not, then your comparison is invalid, and my answer would be void.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You hypocrite, you are talking about the full data sets and complaining that you haven't seen them, yet you haven't even asked the researchers for them, yet you still complain, yet you are saying there is no data, etc.!

Typical armchair posturings. Nothing new.

I am far from a hypocrite: I am not the one who points to the data to support my belief that these are evidence. You are!

I am also far from an armchair skeptic. If you took your time to do some legwork of your own, you would know that I do quite a bit of investigations myself: I go to psychics fairs, I go to paranormal lectures, I look into things myself.

You? You read a book and try to hide your abomination of a "study".

I understand your frustration, though.

[Clancie]

T'ai,

I can understand people offering suggestions (especially since you've been good enough to ask for them ahead of time). Whether you take the suggestions or not, seems totally and completely your choice. It's your project to do as you wish, isn't it?

I guess I don't understand why, after answering your question and offering suggestions and opinions anyone would want to keep trashing what you are planning to do? :confused:

Maybe it will show some interesting patterns or maybe it won't. (Like a lot of research....sometimes it works out; sometimes it doesn't. Even when it doesn't, though, one can learn a lot of how to do it differently next time). I just don't see the point of anyone continuing to badger you about it when it's barely getting off the ground!

P.S. You might want to check renata's analysis of JE on LKL if you haven't already. Even if you're not specifically interested in hits and misses, it still might be good info for you to have, if you're going to be looking at the same transcripts. She did a good job.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I have given you my answer. What are you going to do, put me in a box, where I don't belong? That will do wonders for the credibility of your "study".


Out of these entirely hypothetical positions:

A) I, CLarsen, believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

B) I, CLarsen, don't believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

Which makes you cringe less?


Depends on what you mean by "believe". Do I believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes, but it is more than a belief, it is a scientific fact.


Oh brother, the typical retreat into definitions. "It depends on what the definition of is is" is your next step Claus. :)


You are extremely busy reducing everything you don't like to a "belief". You do it again and again.


Who are you to say I don't like it? Was your attempted mind reading demo supposed to impress me?

By your "logic" you are utterly unable to answer Yes or No about anything regarding beliefs, which is silly. You are agnostic on every single issue apparently (except on the issue of you being agnostic on every issue).


But the psychic down the corner is a professional medium. So, why leave her out?


Claus, you are apparently clueless regarding the tradeoffs between the depth of a project and the tractability of it.

I am interested in collecting the data from transcripts from live sessions of professional mediums and cold readers. If you seek to include all mediums and cold readers everywhere, by all means, start your own study, because that is entirely irrelevant to my stated goals.

Also, originally you tell me point blank that I will be analyzing flawed data... now you suggest that it is better to include all professional mediums.

You need to make up your mind.


No, just show us what you have got so far. I can't be specific because you won't tell us what you are hiding.


No. You'll have to be more specific. I can't help you if you don't even know what you want to talk about. What in the world are you talking about when you say "show us what you have got"?

Again, show me any study where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study. Just show us.


I am asking you why you compare science to your project. If it is science, then you got a BIG problem. If it is not, then your comparison is invalid, and my answer would be void.


You avoided my question to you, yet again. I'll even loosen the conditions for you and see if you are able to answer.

Claus, you are holding me to high standards, standards which don't even exist in studies by professional scientists.

You've still failed to show this thread even one example in any science or any study or project where the full results were made available to anybody and any time before, during or after the study, yet you believe I should be held to those very standards.

Just one Claus, can you do it? If not, why should anyone take your prima donna demands seriously?

I certainly don't.


I am far from a hypocrite: I am not the one who points to the data to support my belief that these are evidence. You are!


Wrong. You are talking about the importance of the full data set, yet you yourself haven't even tried to obtain it. There must be a very deep cushion on that armchair.

Moreover, if you want the full data which I talk about, YOU HAVE TO CONTACT THE RESEARCHERS WHO COLLECTED THE DATA. I AM NOT THEM. I can only go by their various reports and am satisfied with the conclusions of that peer reviewed process.

Do you understand, or do you need further clarification of that point?


I am also far from an armchair skeptic. If you took your time to do some legwork of your own, you would know that I do quite a bit of investigations myself: I go to psychics fairs, I go to paranormal lectures, I look into things myself.


Could you provide the reference of any investigation you've published in a scientific peer reviewed journal?

Any scientific experiment you've done?

Any findings that no one else has found before?

Can you show us any full data sets of yours?

Any statistical analysis of the data you've collected?

I did some "legwork" and couldn't manage to find any. Perhaps you can enlighten me.


You? You read a book and try to hide your abomination of a "study".

I understand your frustration, though.

You believe I am frustrated which is interesting.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Clancie
I can understand people offering suggestions (especially since you've been good enough to ask for them ahead of time).


I don't want to give anyone (skeptics and believers) any excuse like 'you never did this' or 'you didn't ask my for my opinion' or 'you should have done...'. I desired to include peoples' insightful and constructive suggestions before any examining of the transcripts is carried out.

So far I've got very good (but unfortunately very few) constructive suggestions. I'm pleased though. :)


I guess I don't understand why, after answering your question and offering suggestions and opinions anyone would want to keep trashing what you are planning to do? :confused:


I'm not sure. It would be a good resource for believers and skeptics in mediumship if it gets off the ground.


P.S. You might want to check renata's analysis of JE on LKL if you haven't already. Even if you're not specifically interested in hits and misses, it still might be good info for you to have, if you're going to be looking at the same transcripts. She did a good job.

Thanks Clancie, I'll check it out. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Out of these entirely hypothetical positions:

A) I, CLarsen, believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

B) I, CLarsen, don't believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

Which makes you cringe less?

What are you going to do, put me in a box, where I don't belong?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Oh brother, the typical retreat into definitions. "It depends on what the definition of is is" is your next step Claus. :)

Absolutely not. I explained why I believe the sun will rise.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Who are you to say I don't like it? Was your attempted mind reading demo supposed to impress me?

I am merely commenting on your posts.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
By your "logic" you are utterly unable to answer Yes or No about anything regarding beliefs, which is silly. You are agnostic on every single issue apparently (except on the issue of you being agnostic on every issue).

Not at all. I have explained why I don't fall into your two categories. I am not the only one, T'ai Chi - ask Clancie what category she falls into.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No. You'll have to be more specific. I can't help you if you don't even know what you want to talk about. What in the world are you talking about when you say "show us what you have got"?

Very well, you refuse to show us what you got. No secrecy, huh?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You avoided my question to you, yet again. I'll even loosen the conditions for you and see if you are able to answer.

No, I don't avoid it. I point out that if you are doing science, then you have big problems. If you are not, then your comparison is invalid.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Wrong. You are talking about the importance of the full data set, yet you yourself haven't even tried to obtain it. There must be a very deep cushion on that armchair.

Moreover, if you want the full data which I talk about, YOU HAVE TO CONTACT THE RESEARCHERS WHO COLLECTED THE DATA. I AM NOT THEM. I can only go by their various reports and am satisfied with the conclusions of that peer reviewed process.

Do you understand, or do you need further clarification of that point?

Not at all. You want to argue from a data set you haven't seen, and you claim that I have a problem.

Right-o.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Could you provide the reference of any investigation you've published in a scientific peer reviewed journal?

Any scientific experiment you've done?

Where did I claim to do science?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Any findings that no one else has found before?

I can't tell. Does every skeptic have to find new things every time?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Can you show us any full data sets of yours?

Any statistical analysis of the data you've collected?

Try this:

Sun Sign (in)Compatibility (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/sunsigncomp.htm)

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I did some "legwork" and couldn't manage to find any.

Really? What did that "legwork" consist of?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Of course:

Graham Bishop: One lousy cold-reader (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/grahambishop.htm)
An evening with a Miracle Man (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/hvidtmiracle.htm)
Ghost Photography (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/ghostphotography.htm)
Readings from a chatroom (http://www.skepticreport.com/astrology/astrologyreadings.htm)
An Evening with Dean Radin (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm)

Add to that, numerous analyses of how claimants of the paranormal do their schtick. Look also in the upcoming April issue for an account of a healer.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You believe I am frustrated which is interesting.

You know, I don't even think you realize what you just wrote....


So, let's recap:


What are you going to do, label me as:

someone who believes mediums can contact spirits of dead people?
someone who does not believes mediums can contact spirits of dead people?

Have you asked Clancie what category she falls into?
Where did I claim to do science?
What did that "legwork" of yours consist of?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What are you going to do, put me in a box, where I don't belong?


Dodge # 1.

Out of these entirely hypothetical positions:

A) I, CLarsen, believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

B) I, CLarsen, don't believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

Which makes you cringe less?

So you refuse to answer A or B? Just specifically say so, Claus.


Very well, you refuse to show us what you got. No secrecy, huh?


Dodge # 2.

You failed to elaborate on specifically what you want to see. I can't read minds- you have to tell me what you desire to see more details on. But first, you have to find even a single example of a scientific or other study being held to such high standards.

This seems extraordinarily difficult for you to actually do though..


No, I don't avoid it. I point out that if you are doing science, then you have big problems. If you are not, then your comparison is invalid.


Dodge # 3.

You refused to find just one example of any study being held to such high standards, science or otherwise. Why?


Not at all. You want to argue from a data set you haven't seen, and you claim that I have a problem.


Dodge # 4.

You stress the dataset's importance, but have failed to locate it yourself. I guess you don't consider it too important afterall.

I have already informed you that I consider the results from articles published in peer reviewed journals quite satisfactory. I have not seen the full data sets from many many many many many many many scientific studies, and I doubt you or many other people have either.


Where did I claim to do science?


Dodge # 5.

You can't give us one reference where you have published scientific research in a peer reviewed journal, designed an experiment, analyzed data, show us your full data sets, or anything else, yet you aren't shy in offering your critique of others' competence in these areas. I find that highly amusing. I'll let you figure out why.

If you think an article on your own webpage on readings from an internet chatroom satisfies what I was looking for, you are sadly, sadly, mistaken. :(


You know, I don't even think you realize what you just wrote....


I wrote that you believe I am frustrated, which is interesting.


So, let's recap:


Yeah, let's:

You hold me to impossible standards that no scientist or other researchers have ever even been held to. And when asked for specific examples of such studies, you bury your head in the sand.

[Darat]

Bump

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I think you might be oblivious here since you are proposing an observational study be double-blinded, hence me asking the question to you. Think about it for a bit..

You are assessing data where, arguably, the interpretation might vary depending on a persons outlook. When you say "oberservational" it sounds as thought that provides some sort of pass for a bad protocol. T'ai, have you ever done a study, quasi scientific or not? Your questions suggest that you have had no training or experience in this area. That's ok, I am a great believer in inspired amatures. The entire field of anthropology was created just through such inspired and dedicated people. Cultural Anthropology is nothing more than a recapitulation of Butron (with bigger words) 100 years later.

There is also a problem with single blind, since if I take away the mediums' name from the transcript, and the person (Larry King for example) the medium was talking to, and the link to the transcript, someone can just Google for it and discover who it is pretty easily. How do you propose one gets around this?

All that you can do is the best that you can do. A potential problem such as this is not license to do nothing. Ask your reviewers to refrain from doing such a search, but recognize that it is a weakness and that anyone who points it out is quite correct. Science does not get easier because one is investigating the paranormal.

I'm not interested in trickery here Ed. I'm interested in studying the actual data, the actual performances of self proclaimed professional mediums and self proclaimed professional cold readres.

You say "trickery" with scorn. I was suggesting a different experiment, same data. The blinding is what you refer to as "trickery". You may reject the idea ar the method but not with words such as "trickery", please. It suggests that you have limited experience in studies involving human subjects.

I'm asking because you go on about not analyzing edited transcripts. So I'm asking you how do you tell if a transcript is edited.

No idea. That is not the point though. I think that you are conflating the notions of blinding and editing. Two different things. Editing is an issue of content. They might edit out all hits, or all misses, or plural nouns. You have no idea and that is what makes them crap for analysis except in the most limited way. You might, thinking about it, have a group of people view a tape and then get a consensus on segments where there is no discernable editing. You still don't know with certainty, however, and you have no idea how representative such a segment is. As I say, edited anythings are self referential unless you know the rules.

So would you agree or disagree that analzying only mediums' live transcripts is more informative than analyzing live and edited medium and cold reader transcripts? I tend to think so, but would also like some cold reader transcripts in there as well. Ah well. :P

Stop with the "live" already. The issue is editing. Unedited transcripts will tell you a bit about the mechanics of the process.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Dodge # 1.

Out of these entirely hypothetical positions:

A) I, CLarsen, believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

B) I, CLarsen, don't believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people.

Which makes you cringe less?

So you refuse to answer A or B? Just specifically say so, Claus.

No dodge. I have made my point clear. You need to include a box that says "undecided". Why is that so uncomfortable to you? Why do you need your two little boxes?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Dodge # 2.

You failed to elaborate on specifically what you want to see. I can't read minds- you have to tell me what you desire to see more details on. But first, you have to find even a single example of a scientific or other study being held to such high standards.

This seems extraordinarily difficult for you to actually do though..

No dodge. I have made my point clear. You refuse to reveal what you got.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Dodge # 3.

You refused to find just one example of any study being held to such high standards, science or otherwise. Why?

No dodge. I have made my point clear. Either you are doing science (so you have a BIG problem) or you are not (so your question is moot).

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Dodge # 4.

You stress the dataset's importance, but have failed to locate it yourself. I guess you don't consider it too important afterall.

I have already informed you that I consider the results from articles published in peer reviewed journals quite satisfactory. I have not seen the full data sets from many many many many many many many scientific studies, and I doubt you or many other people have either.

No dodge. I have made my point clear. It is not about me, but you: You have not seen the data, yet claim I have a problem. You have already made up your mind without seeing these data, yet claim I have a problem.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Dodge # 5.

You can't give us one reference where you have published scientific research in a peer reviewed journal, designed an experiment, analyzed data, show us your full data sets, or anything else, yet you aren't shy in offering your critique of others' competence in these areas. I find that highly amusing. I'll let you figure out why.

If you think an article on your own webpage on readings from an internet chatroom satisfies what I was looking for, you are sadly, sadly, mistaken. :(

No dodge. I have made my point clear: I have never claimed to do science, yet you dismiss my criticism of your study because you insist that I should be doing science.

You asked for evidence of how I am not an armchair skeptic, and I gave it to you. It is not my problem that you dismiss it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I wrote that you believe I am frustrated, which is interesting.

Yes, it is. You insist that all you don't like is just "belief", whereupon you dismiss it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, let's:

You hold me to impossible standards that no scientist or other researchers have ever even been held to. And when asked for specific examples of such studies, you bury your head in the sand.

You create red herrings, you evade tough questions and you want to hide your "study" from the eyes of the world.

[Cynical]

So even if he does, what is it to YOU, Claus?? Jeez, you've got more TIME on your hands than anyone I know. How is it that you have hours to spend beating dead horses?

You are getting on my nerves, Cantata. Go do something constructive, like dye your white hair dark...you'll look younger.:hit:

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Have you thought about why you exclude the possibility that people are undecided about mediumship?

If you still insist on having just the two groups, where would you put someone like Clancie?

In the group that believes that mediums can contact spirits of dead people?

Or, in the group that does not believe that mediums can contact spirits of dead people?

[Cynical]

I swear, sometimes I think you're both dumb as dirt.

Tai, the mistake you are making is asking Claus if he believes MEDIUMS can contact the dead. Claus KNOWS that there are no such thing as "mediums" that's why he is refusing to be put in a
yes or no "box"....

Here's the deal:

I, Claus Larsen, assert that "mediums" do not exist. I also submit that there is NO EVIDENCE to prove that ANYONE can contact the dead.

I, Clancie, am undecided on the subject.


It's that simple. You just have to use the right words, Tai.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cynical
I, Claus Larsen, assert that "mediums" do not exist.

No, that's not my position.

Originally posted by Cynical
I also submit that there is NO EVIDENCE to prove that ANYONE can contact the dead.

THAT is my position.

Originally posted by Cynical
I, Clancie, am undecided on the subject.

That goes for me as well.

Originally posted by Cynical
It's that simple. You just have to use the right words, Tai.

He just has to acknowledge that he was wrong, and include the third choice.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed


No comment back? Curious.

[Cynical]

LOL! So I finally said something Claus approved of. But, I still don't understand something. If Claus is open to the possibility that mediums exist, then WHY does he get so damn ANGRY when the subject comes up? Why does he stay pissed at Clancie?

He typed a mile-long post over at JE once, describing his anger. Is CF's position that he will only believe mediums exist if he has EVIDENCE that they do?

Well heck, CF, do you believe in GOD??

[Darat]

Originally posted by Cynical
...snip...

Well heck, CF, do you believe in GOD??

Perhaps if you want a serious answer you better provide Claus with exactly which "God" you are asking him about?

[Cynical]

ANY God, Darat.

Christ. Buddha. Lucifer. Whatever.

My point is, I don't believe Claus believes in much of anything, if he insists on having "evidence" for everything.

[Cynical]

Anyhow, it's a rhetorical question, Darat. I don't expect him to answer it. He'll hardly talk to me at all, but he'll converse with that weird-assed Winston Wu.

Now where is the justice in THAT?:confused:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Cynical
My point is, I don't believe Claus believes in much of anything, if he insists on having "evidence" for everything.

Exactly. So? What's it to you?

Get a hobby.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cynical
ANY God, Darat.

Christ. Buddha. Lucifer. Whatever.

Lucifer is not a god, you dimbo. Lucifer is the father of Ceyx, personification of the planet Venus as the morning star and son of Aurora. In Christian theology, Lucifer is the chief of angels, who rebelled against God, and was cast into hell. Lucifer is also called Satan.

But not a god.

Christ is not a "god" either. He is the son of God.

Buddha is the avatar of Vishnu.

Try again.

[Cynical]

Well duh and double duh, Claus. I KNEW all that. Try again? OK.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?? :mad:

By the way, the term you meant to use was dimwit. It's BIMbo with a B, unless you mean DUMBO as in the famed elephant. If you're gonna use American slang, do your research.

[Cynical]

You positively state that Christ is the son of God, CF, and you sound pretty cock-sure about it, too.

So where is your evidence?? Address this, if you can think of an answer.

[magicflute]

Posted by Cynical

My point is, I don't believe Claus believes in much of anything, if he insists on having "evidence" for everything.


As opposed to what? Believing in everything and not requiring any evidence?

BTW - I like DIMBO!!!!!! Perfect new word to describe some of the beauties here!

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by magicflute
Posted by Cynical


As opposed to what? Believing in everything and not requiring any evidence?

BTW - I like DIMBO!!!!!! Perfect new word to describe some of the beauties here!

Yep! That might be a good term for the 'troll lite' we were looking for. Descriptive and easy to remember.

DIMBO! DIMBO! DIMBO!

BTW, my wife thought a news presenter was being 'racist' when he referred to 'blowing up the Jungle Jims' in Afghanistan.

I told her, 'It's "gyms" dear heart':D

[Ed]

I've been away for a few days. Has old T'ai absconded on this project?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
I've been away for a few days. Has old T'ai absconded on this project?

Dunno. There has been absolutely nothing from him regarding the project, despite assurances that those who wanted to participate would be informed on a regular basis.

I signed up, and haven't heard a peep. I have also asked him in various threads how it goes, and haven't heard a peep.

It seems that the project is one of those "sooperseekrit" ones, where we have to wait a long time for a result stemming from data we cannot see, and methods, where some are secret, and some are fundamentally flawed.

Typical of paranormal research: Incredible incompetence, mixed with fraud.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Dunno. There has been absolutely nothing from him regarding the project, despite assurances that those who wanted to participate would be informed on a regular basis. ...snip...

You are lucky, at least you are were allowed to join - I've been excluded by T'ai Chi!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
You are lucky, at least you are were allowed to join - I've been excluded by T'ai Chi!

Really?? On what grounds??

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Really?? On what grounds??

He will delete any PMs from me without reading them.


(Edited for addition and an i.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
He will delete any PMs from me without reading them.

You asked to participate, and he told you that he would delete your PMs?

That's not a reason, that's an action.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You asked to participate, and he told you that he would delete your PMs?

That's not a reason, that's an action.

No it was from a PM of his awhile ago in which he stated that future PMs would be deleted unopened and since I don't believe he has the paranormal ability of being to read the content of a PM without opening it…

(Unless he was lying about this I see no reason to assume he has changed his mind.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
No it was from a PM of his awhile ago in which he stated that future PMs would be deleted unopened and since I don't believe he has the paranormal ability of being to read the content of a PM without opening it…

(Unless he was lying about this I see no reason to assume he has changed his mind.)

What caused him to state this?

I find it very problematic that T'ai Chi seemingly only want people he likes to be in the know. Yet another severe flaw with his project.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What caused him to state this?

I find it very problematic that T'ai Chi seemingly only want people he likes to be in the know. Yet another severe flaw with his project.

I do not know; as far as I am concerned I was civil in my only PM message to him yet his response was to state that he would delete, unopened any future PMs from me.

That means I am excluded from any participation with T'ai Chi that requires any PMs.

[CFLarsen]

I think it would be prudent for T'ai Chi to tell us what the conditions are for people to participate in his project.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed
I've been away for a few days. Has old T'ai absconded on this project?

Ian seems to be gone too.

What have you guys been doing while I was gone?

Where are the bodies?

Have they been communicating trans corporially?

I am frightened.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I think it would be prudent for T'ai Chi to tell us what the conditions are for people to participate in his project.

Claus,

I think that T'ai has gotten over the fun of tweaking us and has looked at the "project" objectively and has realized that it is complicated and that any results are going to be sorta silly and has submerged for a while.

Imagine if you said you were going to put 10,000 coins in date order. After you defend the activity you are faced with a pile of coins and no descernable benefit. Same thing.

Drinking, self abuse, walking the streets muttering to strangers all are more fun and rewarding than what he outlined. Actually that is a typical afternoon for me:D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

I do not know; as far as I am concerned I was civil in my only PM message to him yet his response was to state that he would delete, unopened any future PMs from me.

That means I am excluded from any participation with T'ai Chi that requires any PMs.

LOL. That PM from late February has nothing to do with analyzing transcripts. My comments about ignoring your PM's were in response to you saying what my idea of science supposedly is:

(Darat wrote)
"It does seem that T'ai Chi's idea of a scientist is a man in a white coat, probably with a clipboard in a room with the word "laboratory" on the door. Anything else just isn't "science" as far as T'ai Chi is concerned."

which I consider entirely false, insulting, and calumnious, even with your weasel words of "seem" and "probably" thrown in to CYA.

Considering you haven't even expressed interest in analyzing transcripts, I think your concern about not being included in the study is rather vacuous anyway.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

What are the conditions for people to participate in your project?

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

...snip...

Considering you haven't even expressed interest in analyzing transcripts, I think your concern about not being included in the study is rather vacuous anyway.

Why should I express any interest since from your very first post on the matter you made it clear that you were excluding any participation by me? I.e.

"Please PM me if you are interested in being a volunteer, and please mention whether you would like to help find transcripts, analyze transcripts, or both.
(although please don't start doing these things)"

It is a fact that you have deliberately excluded me from participation in your "study".


_____________________

As an aside I do like how the word “seem" and "probably" are "weasel" words, especially for someone with your claimed statistical knowledge. :D

Being of a sceptical nature I am always open to having my facts corrected and my opinions changed… (Conversely I know you don’t like the idea that new data or evidence may mean your conclusions have to change. ;) )

Perhaps you will now agree that science can be done on TV and science can be done outside a laboratory?

[CFLarsen]

Darat,

It's simply another example of how T'ai Chi does not think things through.


I have PM'd T'ai Chi that I am interested.
T'ai Chi has acknowledged this - by PM.
So I should be ready to get the transcripts assigned to me.
And I should be able to send the analyses back to him.
When you have another poster on ignore, you don't even see the PMs from that person.
T'ai Chi has claimed to have me on ignore.
Sometimes, T'ai Chi takes me off ignore, but puts me back on again.


The question is, of course, how can I can provide T'ai Chi with the results of my analyses of the transcripts. The answer is obvious: I can't. There is no way I can participate in the project.

By putting people on ignore, he has chosen to shut out those people from the get-go, despite their willingness to participate.

Either deliberately, or simply because he is utterly incompetent. I don't know which is worse.

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

It is a fact that you have deliberately excluded me from participation in your "study".
That's too bad, Darat. Perhaps he will reconsider.

T'ai,

I respect that it's your study to run exactly in any way that you want to. But....if I were you, I would definitely delegate all of the transcript analyses to the JREFers, each and every one who has volunteered to you, anyone who seems to want to do it so much. (The greater their intial enthusiasm and "task commitment" the less the chance is that they will burn out on the more tedious aspects of analyzing all this).

In your situation, I'd explain the kinds of things I wanted them to look for and the methodology I wanted them to use for finding and noting the information--and then I'd wait and see what they could come up with. After they've compiled all of the raw data, you would be the perfect person to then take that data and do the statistical analysis of it, since that is your area of specialty.

Personally, I think delegating that "analyzing transcripts" part would help avoid burnout on your part, since this is a very ambitious project and is likely to take a long time.

Just a thought.
:)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

Why should I express any interest since from your very first post on the matter you made it clear that you were excluding any participation by me? I.e.


My ignoring your PMs related to the conversation we were having about my supposed views on science. If you wanted to participate in the project, I'd look at your PMs.


It is a fact that you have deliberately excluded me from participation in your "study".


See above.


As an aside I do like how the word “seem" and "probably" are "weasel" words, especially for someone with your claimed statistical knowledge. :D


A statistical analysis is a little more analytically sound than your beliefs, Darat.


(Conversely I know you don’t like the idea that new data or evidence may mean your conclusions have to change. ;) )


I have no clue what you are rambling about now, nor do I care.


Perhaps you will now agree that science can be done on TV and science can be done outside a laboratory?

Science experiments, yes. Science as a discipline, no.

Outside the laboratory, yes, by females, yes, by people not wearing lab coats, yes, I've thought those things all along despite your mistaken and harmful accusations otherwise.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Clancie

In your situation, I'd explain the kinds of things I wanted them to look for and the methodology I wanted them to use for finding and noting the information--and then I'd wait and see what they could come up with. After they've compiled all of the raw data, you would be the perfect person to then take that data and do the statistical analysis of it, since that is your area of specialty.

Personally, I think delegating that "analyzing transcripts" part would help avoid burnout on your part, since this is a very ambitious project and is likely to take a long time.

Just a thought.
:)

Thanks Clancie. :)

I'm still, with helpful comments from others, trying to determine exactly how to measure the hit % for a given transcript. Some proposed methods are quick but too simple, and some are very very good, but not practical because they would take much too long to do.

In the meantime I'll just have to ask some skeptics certain questions that can only be answered by actually numerically analyzing transcripts to illustrate the need for such a thing. :)