Tests Prove Mediums Really Can Contact Dead

[WWu777]

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3671

Tests Prove Mediums Really Can Contact Dead

[Ladewig]

A JREF thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38548)
another JREF thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37870)


Is there an echo in here?

[HenDralux]

I've spoke to Patricia before about this.

She told me that the article in question was around about 50% correct. She was certainly not happy with it.

I also asked her why she made the seemingly knee-jerk comment "If anyone claims it is fixed or rigged, we would sue."

She didn't answer that particular question.

[Nyarlathotep]

Just from the description of how the tests were done I can safely say they prove nothing. The whole test relied on the sitter saying whether felt that what the medium was saying "applied to them". Besides the fact that that is a hopelessly vague criteria for any sort of scientific test, there is the fact that this opens it up to all manner of sitter bias. It's no different than when some people have, in attempts to show how astrology does not work, told people that they were going to give them their horoscope and instead gave them a horoscope that was not their own. When asked how accurate the horoscope was, they tended to say it was very accurate. People look for the parts that "Apply to them" and The same psychology is likely at work here.

There is also the suspicious lack of a control group. No where do I see it mentioned that they did any sort of control, such as a non-medium giving "readings" and people scoring those. This is especialy troubling since anyone who has even taken a high school science class knows about control groups and why they are important. If they omitted it, it smacks of deliberate deception, not a simple mistake.

Lastly I would like to know where they got this 30% figure. Unless they explain it I can only assumed that it was pulled from thin air.

In short, this was a poorly designed, poorly executed "test" that proves nothing at all.

[Clancie]

Posted by nyarlathotep

The whole test relied on the sitter saying whether felt that what the medium was saying "applied to them". Besides the fact that that is a hopelessly vague criteria for any sort of scientific test, there is the fact that this opens it up to all manner of sitter bias.
Well, I'm wondering how you feel about that aspect of Randi's "Sylvia Challenge"?

The scoring is completely based on 10 sitters (9 of them knowing they were never read) telling whether they feel the reading "applied to them".

Would Randi's scoring, iyo, be an accurate way to evaluate Sylvia?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I'm wondering how you feel about that aspect of Randi's "Sylvia Challenge"?

The scoring is completely based on 10 sitters (9 of them knowing they were never read) telling whether they feel the reading "applied to them".

Would Randi's scoring, iyo, be an accurate way to evaluate Sylvia?

My first thought is to say no, it isn't accurate, but I would have to read more details of the whole protocol before I could give a definitive yea or nay. Though I think it is a lot more likely to err in Sylvia's favor than Randi's so if I were her, I wouldn't complain.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm sure they would gladly reproduce the tests and results for the JREF if asked. Right?

[davidhorman]

(9 of them knowing they were never read)

That bit's definitely not true. If they knew they were never read Randi would be allowing them to skew the results in favour of Sylvia.

It was something like, Sylvia does the reading of one random sittee and the same reading is distributed to all 10 sitters. The true sittee should score the reading higher than the others.

I'm doing this from memory - it actually sounds like a very dodgy protocol (and has a 1/10 probability of winning by chance). What should be done is Sylvia makes a reading for all of them, and all 10 are given to the sitters. They pick the reading they feel most closely matches them. If, say, 7 out of 10 pick their own reading, she passes. Mind you, we know it'll never happen, so it's all academic.

We used this exact protocol in a test of guy called Steve here on the JREF boards. The original threads are probably gone, which is a shame because it was a good exercise. He didn't pass, but he wasn't really expecting to.

David

[tramper]

There is only one definitive proof....... the day a Medium knocks on your door out of the blue and says " I have a message " after all your dear departed know where you live.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidhorman
We used this exact protocol in a test of guy called Steve here on the JREF boards. The original threads are probably gone....

Not necessarily. Can you give me some search words? :)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by tramper
There is only one definitive proof....... the day a Medium knocks on your door out of the blue and says " I have a message " after all your dear departed know where you live.

As do a lot of other people who might have an interest in making you believe they have super powers.
In the UK it is possible to find out someone's address relatively easily, given the inclination and an investment of some time and money.

If someone came to my door and tried that, I'd close it straight away.

[Clancie]

Posted by david horman

That bit [that 9 of them know they were never read by Sylvia] is definitely not true. If they knew they were never read Randi would be allowing them to skew the results in favour of Sylvia.
Well, perhaps you should actually read Randi's protocol as he outlined it to Sylvia.

Here's how Randi describes it, including the part I mentioned above about the other 9 people:


When the (phone) reading (with one of the ten people selected at Randi's end "at random") is finished, you would so indicate, and the subject would then be asked to give a score to the reading, from zero to ten points.

Following that, we would contact, again in random order, each of the other nine persons for whom the reading was not done, and present them with either a transcript of the reading, or an audio tape of it, for them to also score from zero to ten.

Now, we should expect that the person for whom the reading was done would obtain a score, say, from six through ten, and — unless my "guessing game" scenario is correct — the other nine for whom the reading was not done, would have scores of zero to five.

But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds — which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! — eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done.

That's his proposal...really bad, imo, in every respect.

[Clancie]

Posted by tramper

There is only one definitive proof....... the day a Medium knocks on your door out of the blue and says " I have a message " after all your dear departed know where you live."
Tramper,

Anecdotal!

As Xx-Rational-xX would say, "Debunked!"

:)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
That's his proposal...really bad, imo, in every respect.

You are beating a dead horse. Sylvia does not want to take this test, be it ever so flawed.

We have discussed this test endlessly, and we are not going to get anywhere, until - or, in reality: if - Sylvia actually agrees to it.

But I understand your reasoning for beating this animal corpse.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Tramper,

Anecdotal!

Not if it was under proper controls. That's what you keep missing. Deliberately, I think it is fair to say.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, perhaps you should actually read Randi's protocol as he outlined it to Sylvia.

Here's how Randi describes it, including the part I mentioned above about the other 9 people:


That's his proposal...really bad, imo, in every respect.

Now that I have read it, I can tell you the major difference between Randi's protocol for Sylvia Brown and the protocol described in the article. The difference is the addition of a control group, in the form of the people for whom the reading was not done. Simply put, if the subject of the reading scores the relevancy at an 8 (for example) , and the control group also averages around an eight, it shows a greater likelyhood that the high score was due to the human tendency to see relvance in things, rather than due to any special ability on the Ms. Brown's part. The addition of the control group makes a world of difference.

I still think that anything that requires you to rate how applicable a reading is to a person is too subjective to be a good test, but Randi's protocol for Sylvia is a LOT better than the one mentioned in the article.

[Clancie]

Posted by nyarlathotep

Now that I have read it, I can tell you the major difference between Randi's protocol for Sylvia Brown and the protocol described in the article. The difference is the addition of a control group, in the form of the people for whom the reading was not done.
Nyarlathotep,

Well, we agree that the Sylvia Challenge is too subjective, but I don't see how this group of 9 works, iyo, as a control group.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine anyone here thinking this Sylvia test would be a good test if it was proposed by Schwartz rather than Randi. It is riddled with subjectivity and doesn't measure what it is supposed to.

For example...the idea of putting so much emphasis on how 9 people (who know the reading wasn't for them anyway) are going to score it, "as if it is" for them. That's a terrible way to evaluate it it and makes no effort to rule out the chance of collusion. :confused:

Second, Randi claims there will be "no need for judging", that the results are "self evident". But this is hardly the case with this 0-10 scale, as it is highly subjective--plus the scorers already know what their rating will mean to the test results if they've read the protocol he's published.


Simply put, if the subject of the reading scores the relevancy at an 8 (for example) , and the control group also averages around an eight, it shows a greater likelyhood that the high score was due to the human tendency to see relvance in things, rather than due to any special ability on the Ms. Brown's part.
Not at all. The scorers can simply throw the test results, one way or the other, due to bias, either intentionally or subconsciously. (And it shows nothing about mediumship).
The addition of the control group makes a world of difference.
Again, the nine -don't- function as a control group.

Beyond that, the biggest flaws are (1) the scoring itself (which statistically makes no sense as representing "50:1 odds") and (2) the intent of the test itself--which obviously isn't testing the claim (mediumship) at all. Its testing Randi's theory that Sylvia is a cold reader. That is completely different.

Robertson and Roy were testing the claim of mediumship, with people selected randomly and who evaluated readings without knowing which reading was for them.

Overall, R&R's is a much better design and avoids some of the really serious design flaws with Randi's Sylvia protocol.

[TheBoyPaj]

Why are you assuming that the nine other people know it's not their reading? That would be pointless!

The idea is that no one would know if it was their reading or not. They would be scoring it on the basis that it might very well be theirs.

I agree that the terms which Randi set for Sylvia to win the money are far too easy, and would not in themselves constitute proof of ability. Maybe he was just so keen to tempt her into taking part that he fancied the gamble. I'm not sure I would have done the same but hey! It's not my money. (And before you start, I know it's not Randi's either :D ).

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie
(2) the intent of the test itself--which obviously isn't testing the claim (mediumship) at all. Its testing Randi's theory that Sylvia is a cold reader. That is completely different.


I don't understand the distinction you have made here. How does Randi's protocol not test for mediumship?

[Nyarlathotep]

I could adress some of the points made by the rest of your post but that's a lot more writing than I feel up to today. Maybe tomorrow. In short, though, I will repeat that I agree that the test has flaws, but that I think it is a lot better than the test mentioned in the article.

Originally posted by Clancie

Beyond that, the biggest flaws are (1) the scoring itself (which statistically makes no sense as representing "50:1 odds") and (2) the intent of the test itself--which obviously isn't testing the claim (mediumship) at all. Its testing Randi's theory that Sylvia is a cold reader. That is completely different.

This quote though, I think I do have to address. If Randi's hypothesis is that Sylvia is a cold reader then from a scientific standpoint, that is what he SHOULD be testing for. I don't think he is either intending or claiming to be testing for mediumship. Sylvia is claiming to be able to speak to the dead, Randi's hypothesis is that she is a cold reader, the test is designed to see who is right. If the test is only for cold reading and Ms. Brown is in fact not a cold reader (even if she isn't a medium either), then she ought to jump at it, since it would be an easy million for her

Robertson and Roy were testing the claim of mediumship, with people selected randomly and who evaluated readings without knowing which reading was for them.

Overall, R&R's is a much better design and avoids some of the really serious design flaws with Randi's Sylvia protocol.

I have no idea who these people are so I can't say anything about them. If you provided more detail perhaps I could.

[Loki]

Clancie,

I agree that the Randi/Sylvia proposal is badly flawed if it was ever implemented as described. I can only assume that Randi was giving a lose 'summary' of the test , without bothering to try and tie down all the details - probably because he knew those details would never be needed!

[davidhorman]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, perhaps you should actually read Randi's protocol as he outlined it to Sylvia.

Here's how Randi describes it, including the part I mentioned above about the other 9 people:

Following that, we would contact, again in random order, each of the other nine persons for whom the reading was not done, and present them with either a transcript of the reading, or an audio tape of it, for them to also score from zero to ten.

That's his proposal...really bad, imo, in every respect.

It doesn't say the other 9 know it's not their reading - in fact I think it's implied that they don't know. It would be quite easy to infer it's not their reading, if they knew the readee was to have their reading done over the phone, but I'd hope that by the time it came to doing the test, someone would have pointed this out and the other 9 would have the reading played out down the phone (the original reading would have been a one-way phone conversation).

But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds — which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! — eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done.

Not sure I get this part (this is part of what Randi wrote, not what Clancie wrote). Surely there's only a 2/10 chance that at least eight of the sitters will score the reading lower than the true sitter?

David

[Loki]

Nyarlathotep,

...but that I think it is a lot better than the test mentioned in the article.
...
I have no idea who these people are so I can't say anything about them.
The Robertson and Roy proposed protocol (which they claim to have used in the tests that are the subject of the article) is a very good one. In a nutshell, they propose :

1. The medium is completely isolated (a separate room I believe) from the audience - no contact, audio or visual, of any kind at any time (before, during or after the reading).

2. Audience of approximately 20 'potential sitters' enters a room and sit on numbered chairs.

3. Medium is given a randomly choosen number, and 'reads' the sitter in that chair - at no time does the medium see or hear the sitter, and the sitter has no idea they are being 'read'.

4. The medium's reading is copied and distributed to each of the 20 audience members. They ALL then rate the reading according to how "relevant to them" it is.

The claimed result is that, over a large number of trials, the actual sitter (different in each trial) has repeatedly rated the reading significantly higher than the other audience members.

If the protocol has been followed, then it goes a long way to removing the possibility of any kind of cold reading. .

[MRC_Hans]

Couple of problems here.

- What is the rating system?

- Of course, we'd like to actually SEE the ratings from ALL the tests (not just those that turned out well).

- What is the proposed mechanism? How is the medium supposed to "tune in on" that particular sitter? I mean, even if there is some systematic effect there, they need to explain just how it supports their thesis.

Hans

[Cynical]

Hey, Claus Flodin Larsen! What's happenin' bub?:w2:

Still trailing Clancie, I see. But the "beating the dead horse" is MY expression, Claus. Think up one of your own. Also, don't you think that telling Clancie that SHE is beating a dead horse is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?:p

[TheBoyPaj]

Cynical, have you ever got ANYTHING of any value to say? Ever?

[Loki]

MRC_Hans,

I mean, even if there is some systematic effect there, they need to explain just how it supports their thesis.
I believe the "thesis" that is driving these tests is something along the lines of "the results produced cannot be explained by cold reading". In other words, the test is designed to counter two of the common explanations put forward :

1. That the medium uses 'clues' from the sitter's appearance, age, voice, and (most importantly) answers to generate the reading.

2. That the reading is deliberately 'generic', so that the reading details will fit a number of different people.

The protocol seeks to address the first by removing all forms of physical interaction between the medium and sitter. It addresses the second by having the entire audience rate the reading at a time when none of them know who was actually read.

The thing here is that this test protocol is designed not so much to 'prove' speaking-to-the-dead, but to disprove the 'cold-reading' explanation.

[Clancie]

I'm kind of surprised by the rationalizations coming up around the Sylvia challenge.
Posted by Loki

I can only assume that Randi was giving a lose 'summary' of the test , without bothering to try and tie down all the details - probably because he knew those details would never be needed!
Hi Loki,

It's not a problem of "not tying down the details". He's got all the details in place--it's just (unlike R&R) a lousy design.
Posted by nyarlathotep

If Randi's hypothesis is that Sylvia is a cold reader then from a scientific standpoint, that is what he SHOULD be testing for. I don't think he is either intending or claiming to be testing for mediumship. Sylvia is claiming to be able to speak to the dead, Randi's hypothesis is that she is a cold reader, the test is designed to see who is right.
nyarlathotep,

Nope. Randi says claimants make the claim of a paranormal ability and he tests their claim, period.
Posted by the Boy Paj

I don't understand the distinction you have made here. How does Randi's protocol not test for mediumship?
Paj (and david horman),

If Sylvia read for all of them via phone and 4 of the 10 identified their readings correctly, that would have met the 50:1 odds Randi says he's looking for in her test.

But Randi doesn't -give- her the chance to demonstrate mediumship with 50:1 odds. He stacks the deck at the outset, by only allowing her to read one person, denying her the 9 other opportunitites and making -their evaluation- the focus of the test.

The nine people who weren't read (his description) look at the tenth person's reading and score it for how general it is, i.e. how well it fits them, too. That isn't measuring spirit communication. Its measuring cold reading...which -isn't- the claimants claim.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
If Sylvia read for all of them via phone and 4 of the 10 identified their readings correctly, that would have met the 50:1 odds Randi says he's looking for in her test.

But Randi doesn't -give- her the chance to demonstrate mediumship with 50:1 odds. He stacks the deck at the outset, by only allowing her to read one person, denying her the 9 other opportunitites and making -their evaluation- the focus of the test.

The nine people who weren't read (his description) look at the tenth person's reading and score it for how general it is, i.e. how well it fits them, too. That isn't measuring spirit communication. Its measuring cold reading...which -isn't- the claimants claim.

So, the difference between testing for mediumship as opposed to cold reading is that 4 are tested instead of 1? The number goes up?

What happened to your demand that mediumship has to demonstrate spirit communication? I don't see anything in your explanation that includes spirit communication. Only that the test persons has to decide that the reading was for them.

[TheBoyPaj]

Yep. The numbers are nothing to do with whether it tests medium communication, Clancie.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily test the mechanism for the phenomenon. After all, Sylvia could pass the test by using telepathy or some other paranormal means.

But actually, what does it matter if it's a test for mediumship or just a protocol to remove the possibility of cold reading/generalised readings? If she can do what she claims (and she agreed to the protocol, remember?), she can win the million. And that is the point. Randi doesn't care HOW you do it. All that matters is that you do something that would not be possible by normal means.

[Cynical]

Does anyone here believe that Jesus actually made a blind man see again by placing his hands over the man's eyes? Does anyone believe that Jesus caused a young girl to rise from the dead?

What do you skeptics make of that? Surely you don't think Jesus was a magician.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Cynical
Does anyone here believe that Jesus actually made a blind man see again by placing his hands over the man's eyes? Does anyone believe that Jesus caused a young girl to rise from the dead?

I don't. What evidence is there that he did? You can't use the Bible in this instance because it is neither corroborated by other sources nor is it even an eyewitness account, making it pretty much worthless as a historical document in this case. So unless you have something I am not aware of, I would say "No"

What do you skeptics make of that? Surely you don't think Jesus was a magician.

Who knows? Jesus' very existance can't be established with any certainty. Therefore trying figure out why certain stories rose up about him is premature at best.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

nyarlathotep,

Nope. Randi says claimants make the claim of a paranormal ability and he tests their claim, period.


Even so, let's assume for sake of argument that mediumship is indeed real. Since we do not know how it works, there is no way to test for it directly. Therefore, the only way to establish its existance would be to try to block as many avenues EXCEPT for true mediumship that a medium could get the information that they claim to be able to acess. If the tester (I.e. Mr. Randi) thinks that the most likely "normal" avenue through which the medium could get information is cold reading, then of course the bigest amount of effort in the experiment is going to be spent in blocking cold reading. It is only common sense. Thus, in testing for cold reading he IS testing the claim the only way the claim can be tested given our current understanding of the world.

[Clancie]

Posted by nyarlathotep

Thus, in testing for cold reading he IS testing the claim the only way the claim can be tested given our current understanding of the world.
So, do I have this right?

You (and others) think its perfectly fine for Randi to test Sylvia for the cold reading hypothesis rather than for mediumship, even though mediumship is the claim?

So...does that mean that you think Randi doesn't mean it when he says the claimant makes a paranormal claim and then the Challenge tests that claim....or.....?????

Also, the arbitrary scoring....the subjectivity (despite Randi's promise that "no judging is required; the results are self evident"...the possibility for collusion....none of these things make you, um, doubt, um, his intent here?

Ooookkkayyy......

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

So, do I have this right?

You (and others) think its perfectly fine for Randi to test Sylvia for the cold reading hypothesis rather than for mediumship, even though mediumship is the claim?

So...does that mean that you think Randi doesn't mean it when he says the claimant makes a paranormal claim and then the Challenge tests that claim....or.....?????

Yes because even if Mediumship is real, we do not know how it work or the first thing about it. Therefore the ONLY way to test for it is to test for it by excluding other possibilities, and Mr. randi apparently feels the most likely of those other possibilities is cold reading.

Also, the arbitrary scoring....the subjectivity (despite Randi's promise that "no judging is required; the results are self evident"...the possibility for collusion....none of these things make you, um, doubt, um, his intent here?

Ooookkkayyy......

Okay, now I am getting irritated becuase you, apparently, are either not listening or are choosing to ignore what I have said. For the third frickin' time, I AM NOT OKAY WITH THE SUBJECTIVITY AND SOME OF THE OTHER FLAWS, GODDAMMIT! Christ on a freaking crutch, am I going to have to put it in big red font so you can see it? Do I have to say it again?

As for his intent, I can't read his mind (if I could, I'd be a million dollars richer) so I don't know. However, Randi is not infallible and I doubt anyone here thinks he is. So a bad decision seems as likely as any sort of conspiracy on his part. I have have always thought that the biggest problem witht he challenge is the posssibility that someone may claim it not because they can do anything "supernatural" but because someone involved n the test will sooner or later make a mistake enabling a cheater to win. All of the people involved are as error prone as anyone else in the world.

[Reginald]

Clancie, don't you think that if people have the clarity of conversation with the dead that they claim they had, these tests would get blown out of the water. Be it testing for being a medium or a cold reader or multiple choice physics (I assume physicists die as well)?

The claim is that the contact is made, information passes from the dead to the medium, it is claimed that this information is so good that people should pay for it (even thinly disguised as expenses only in many cases) so any test would be simple to pass.

All this quibble about half a percent here in study X or Y and a couple of percent there, the thing (if true) would be blindingly self evident, should be blindingly self evident.

Before anyone doubts my credentials, my ex wife is a member of the spiritualist church here in the UK, so believe me I've seen hundreds of these efforts and not one has come close......not even close to convincing me that they have any contact with any dead person.

[Clancie]

Reginald,

No, but more to the point, none of what you say is an excuse for a poorly designed test, one way or the other.

Randi says his Challenge tests the claim, fairly, with results that are statistically better than chance, in a way that requires no judging.

That's -his- claim. My point is that, no, that's not what he's trying to do at all.

Really, I don't see why there's so much resistance to facing up to these flaws in Randi's testing protocol--and so many efforts to change the issue into a discussion of whether paranormal abilities are real or not :confused:--but apparently, there is.

[Clancie]

Claus,

You've offered many times for me to write an article for Skeptic Report. Would you publish an article on the flaws of The Sylvia Challenge?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

You've offered many times for me to write an article for Skeptic Report. Would you publish an article on the flaws of The Sylvia Challenge?

Clanice, can you offer an alternative test? You say the test is subjective and requires judging, but then, aren't Sylvia's powers subjective and require judging? It's not like she's a dowser where you can either detect the gold (or whatever) or not. It's a highly subjective claim.

So, can you think of an alternative test?

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

So, can you think of an alternative test?
Yes, TLN (although this seems like yet another distraction from the topic of Randi and his Challenge

Actually, I can.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, TLN (although this seems like yet another distraction from the topic of Randi and his Challenge

Actually, I can.

I'm not distracted as it seems quite relevant to the issue at hand to me. How does the JREF objectively test subjective claims?

How would you design the test?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

You've offered many times for me to write an article for Skeptic Report. Would you publish an article on the flaws of The Sylvia Challenge?

Why, hello there! Glad to see you have finally dropped the pretense of having me on ignore!

Of course I would publish it, if it had skeptical merit. However, Sylvia has been covered quite a lot, and it doesn't seem as if she is ever going to take the friggin' challenge anyway, so would you consider an article on lesser known mediums, like Robert Brown? I am sure that people would be interested in learning from your experience with him.

I am not going to ask you to write a skeptical article about John Edward, though. We are probably never going to agree there, and I respect that. I doubt you would like the follow-up article from me anyway! ;)

Whatever you decide, there is just one thing I would like to clear with you, before your article is published. As you might have guessed by now, I value skepticism and critical thinking quite a lot, and do not think that anything is gained from advocating close-mindedness. If we are going to learn, we have to listen to everybody. We don't have to agree with everybody, but the key to learning is keeping an open mind.

I just want to make it crystal clear to you: I do not want to provide space for someone who shuts herself off to arguments contrary to her own convictions. And be honest now: You have done that in the past, which is why I raise this point. Such behavior would be very much against the idea behind SkepticReport. SkepticReport is not a soap box for anyone. When you get an article published, it comes with the prize of open-mindedness: You accept the responsibility that your own views are challenged - and that you cannot decide who challenges them. You have to answer your critics, whatever points they raise, and whoever they may be.

I simply need a confirmation from you: Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Of course I would publish it, if it had skeptical merit. However, Sylvia has been covered quite a lot...

But Randi proposing a flawed test hasn't. I believe that would be Clancie's angle for the article.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
But Randi proposing a flawed test hasn't. I believe that would be Clancie's angle for the article.

True. The article would have to be about Randi, and not Sylvia, then.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
True. The article would have to be about Randi, and not Sylvia, then.

Far be it for me to speak for Clancie, but I think that's what she has in mind. Randi says the tests will be objective and without the need for judging, but the Sylvia test does exactly that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Far be it for me to speak for Clancie, but I think that's what she has in mind. Randi says the tests will be objective and without the need for judging, but the Sylvia test does exactly that.

Let's see what Clancie says.

[davidhorman]

Randi says the tests will be objective and without the need for judging, but the Sylvia test does exactly that.

There is a subjective element to the protocol, but that occurs in a box as far as the result in concerned.

It's no more subjective than what might go through a dowser's mind while he tries to ascertain whether a box contains a piece of gold. The result, though, is objective - he states whether he believes the box contains a coin, or not (or he says he can't tell because of the "gold" leaf in a nearby book, but that usually doesn't happen until after the test).

And yes, I definitely agree that the protocol as quoted from Randi is bad. Luckily he likes to consult with statisticians, so I'm confident he would have altered it had their been any sign of participation from Sylvia.

David

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

I simply need a confirmation from you: Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?
That seems a rather odd requirement to impose on writers who contribute to Skeptic Report. Do you require that of everyone who submits articles to you? Or only of me?

And, TLN, yes, you're right. It would be about the Challenge, specifically the most detailed protocol we have to look at, the Sylvia Challenge protocol. (And, until I hear from Claus if there's some kind of "future intellectual restrictions/ requirements on all writers for SR" as he has stipulated above, I'd like to save my idea about modifying the SC and include it in the article).

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie
You (and others) think its perfectly fine for Randi to test Sylvia for the cold reading hypothesis rather than for mediumship, even though mediumship is the claim?


It tests Sylvia's ability to provide accurate readings for her clients. That is what she does, every day, and is the means by which she amasses her considerable income. SHE agreed it's a fair test. SHE agreed it was something she could do. Who cares if you have a problem with it?

If she's a genuine medium, she can pass the test. If she isn't, she won't. In my book, that makes it a test of her claim.

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

It tests Sylvia's ability to provide accurate readings for her clients. That is what she does, every day, and is the means by which she amasses her considerable income. SHE agreed it's a fair test. SHE agreed it was something she could do. Who cares if you have a problem with it?
Well, I agree that it's not about me, Paj. It's about the issue of good test design.

So....for you (and others who've posted in a similar vein)....If Gary Schwartz designed a mediumship test for Sylvia...Meaning...he published the protocol (including scoring method) in advance...then selected 10 sitters...had Sylvia read one of them by phone....asked the other 9 who knew they weren't read to evaluate the reading as it applied to themselves....and announced Sylvia demonstrated mediumship because 8 of the 9 people scored it lower than the person who was read....that would seem very convincing to you that, yes, she had paranormal ability?

Sorry, Paj, but I think there's a real lack of skeptical/criticial thinking for some people when it comes to Randi and the Challenge. If this were Schwartz's protocol, I think you'd all be pouncing on the (obvious) flaws.

But, since it's Randi's...it gets a "pass".....

[davidhorman]

But, since it's Randi's...it gets a "pass".....

Hands up anyone in the "sceptic camp" who thinks it's okay that the non-readees know that they weren't being read.

Anyone?

David

[TLN]

Originally posted by davidhorman
Hands up anyone in the "sceptic camp" who thinks it's okay that the non-readees know that they weren't being read.

I don't like the Sylvia protocol either. Clancie often paints with a broad brush though, stereotyping skeptics.

[TheBoyPaj]

No, I wouldn't. I already said that I don't think the scoring criteria chosen would mean that you could take it as clinching proof of anything. It's too easy.

But that's not the point of this challenge. It's not a scientific test to determine what is actually happening. It's a gamble between Randi and Sylvia. He proposed it and she agreed to it. If she passes she gets a million dollars and we all sit up and look. Nothing more.

Think about the Yellow Bamboo challenge, for instance. Imagine they hadn't tried to cheat, and they really had just walked up to the bloke and tapped him with a small piece of bamboo and he had fallen over. Would that be final, clinching proof of their paranormal ability? Of course not. The guy could have fainted or had a brain haemorrage at the key moment. But it would be enough for them to win the million.

Of course, I am fairly sure that if Schwartz got lucky in this test he WOULD be trumpeting it as final and clinching proof. But that's another story.

[davidhorman]

I don't like the Sylvia protocol either.

And I think "protocol" is being generous. What we have appears to be a single quote from Randi, loosely describing the vague outline of a test that will in all probability never get taken.

David

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
That seems a rather odd requirement to impose on writers who contribute to Skeptic Report. Do you require that of everyone who submits articles to you? Or only of me?

All, of course. That comes with the territory.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, TLN, yes, you're right. It would be about the Challenge, specifically the most detailed protocol we have to look at, the Sylvia Challenge protocol. (And, until I hear from Claus if there's some kind of "future intellectual restrictions/ requirements on all writers for SR" as he has stipulated above, I'd like to save my idea about modifying the SC and include it in the article).

Please. I have made my point very clear. There are no "future intellectual restrictions/ requirements on all writers for SR." There is no need to stall. Just give me your answer:

Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?

It's a simple question, Clancie. Surely, you did not expect to have your article published, and then not challenged? Did you expect not to be required to answer to criticism?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

All, of course.
Let me get this right, Claus. You required all the people who've submitted article to Skeptic Report to...
Posted by CFLarsen

"Promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?"
Do they sign a notarized document guaranteeing this to you, or what?

As the saying in the game goes, "I doubt it." But, of course, there are many writers here at JREF who have written for SR so I'm sure they can chime in here and say that, yes, you have extracted this promise from them, too.

As the saying goes, "I'll believe it when I see it." I have never heard of telling people what and how to think in exchange for them submitting an (unpaid even) article.

[Loki]

davidhorman,

And I think "protocol" is being generous.
Exactly. It's Randi giving an overview description of the test, with the basic outline showing, but the details yet to be defined. He knew she'd never take the test. The day after he was LKL saying this, I posted a thread here questioning the validity of his suggested test. The concensus then (IIRC) was that (a) he was trying to get the broad concept across, not get into an argument about tiny details; and (b) that he had been sloppy in his choice of words.

[Clancie]

Posted by david horman

And I think "protocol" is being generous. What we have appears to be a single quote from Randi, loosely describing the vague outline of a test that will in all probability never get taken.
:confused:

"Vague"? Not at all. Look on the Home page for the details. Randi is very specific and covers everything in his protocol for Sylvia. It isn't the least bit "vague" (nor is it in any way an "outline").

I'm sorry but this is just more rationalization of the flaws in a protocol that was clearly well thought out in advance by Randi. It clearly reflects the way he would like to do the test. The flaws of it (and there are many) are there for a reason. It has been well thought out,--at least in terms of Randi's goals (i.e. to test for cold reading rather than the claimant's claim of mediumship).

[TheBoyPaj]

You seem to think that this test would be unfairly hard for someone with Sylvia's supposed powers to pass? That Randi is somehow presenting a flawed test on purpose. Why is that? Most of us seem to think that any flaws which are present are in Slyvia's favour.


Edit: Corrected spelling of Sylvia. Then put it back the way it was again.

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

Most of us seem to think that any flaws which are present are in Slyvia's favour.
Yes, but I think that's...well, let's say, "successful misdirection".

[davidhorman]

that was clearly well thought out in advance by Randi

For whatever reason, it clearly wasn't well thought out. It's a bad protocol, okay? You don't seem to be getting any argument out of us on that one.

We, the undersigned, agree with Clancie that the proposed test, outlined by Randi to Sylvia Browne on Larry King's show, sucks.

David

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, but I think that's...well, let's say, "successful misdirection".

Why so coy? Just come out and say what's wrong with it. How does it favour Randi? Why would someone with Sylvia's claimed abilities not be able to pass it easily?

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

Just come out and say what's wrong with it
:confused:

I already did, on the previous page.

And Sylvia hypothetically passing or not passing isn't the issue...at all.

david horman,

lol. :)

[TheBoyPaj]

No you didn't. You said that you thought the 9 subjects would know it wasn't their reading (they wouldn't), and that the scoring was subjective (which it necessarily is), and that you were generally unhappy with it (with which we concur).

However, over on this page you suggested that Randi is using misdirection to trick us into accepting a test which favours him.

I'll ask again. How does it favour Randi? Why would a real medium not be able to pass it?

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

How does it favour Randi? Why would a real medium not be able to pass it?
First, I never said a real medium would not be able to pass it. I said it is not a test of the claim of mediumship.

How does it favor Randi? Let's rephrase that to "How has Randi designed the test so that it does not test the claim, and so that the results are stacked against the claimant, and therefore no million will be paid?"

Again (and I enumerated these before, maybe you missed it), the answer is....

(1) It tests the cold reading hypothesis, not the paranormal claim (of mediumship).

(2) It stacks the deck by having only one (1) reading of the ten people done. Yet the results (i.e. "cold reading, yes or no?") are determined by the answers of nine (9) people who were not read and who (according to Randi's wording) know they were not read.

(3) It stacks the deck against the claimant by saying the test will not be subjective and no judging is required and yet....the evaluation is highly subjective (in looking for cold reading) and judging is -definitely- being required;

(4) It stacks the deck further because...Where does he come up with the odds of succeeding at what he's proposed as 50:1? On what basis has he calculated this? This claim of Randi's makes no sense statistically at all.

(5) He stacks the deck further because he selects the 10...and he also selects (supposedly at "random") the one person who is read and the nine who aren't but who evaluate the reading to see how much it could apply to them.

In other words, the protocol in no way rules out the possibility of collusion, cheating...whatever you call it. That doesn't mean anyone is cheating, but a test design should rule it out, not seem to actually be creating opportunities for collusion, as this one does.

(6) The "misdirection" comes in with the whole bit about the 10 people "believing in Sylvia's powers". A test should be designed so it doesn't matter if they believe or not. (And if he wants them to "believe"--why not let Sylvia, instead of Randi, select them?)

That whole part is just put in there to show, "Look! I've even said they're believers! What an advantage for her!" That's just misdirection, imo, and is only included to draw attention from the problems I've listed above.

[Archangel]

Replying to an old post (and playing devils advocate):

Paj Said

Why are you assuming that the nine other people know it's not their reading? That would be pointless!

from the protocols that were posted we can see that the people who werent read are being provided with a transcript of the conversation (whether oral or written) and would know that they didnt have that conversation (DavidH supplied 2 supplemental protocols (one way initial conversation, and the conversation to be repeated to the non-read participants) which would hopefully be included but at the moment aren't)


When the (phone) reading (with one of the ten people selected at Randi's end "at random") is finished, you would so indicate, and the subject would then be asked to give a score to the reading, from zero to ten points.
Following that, we would contact, again in random order, each of the other nine persons for whom the reading was not done, and present them with either a transcript of the reading, or an audio tape of it, for them to also score from zero to ten.




Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
No you didn't. You said that you thought the 9 subjects would know it wasn't their reading (they wouldn't), and that the scoring was subjective (which it necessarily is), and that you were generally unhappy with it (with which we concur).

However, over on this page you suggested that Randi is using misdirection to trick us into accepting a test which favours him.

I'll ask again. How does it favour Randi? Why would a real medium not be able to pass it?

I believe that Clancie is inferring that the 9 additional subjects could "unfairly" be biased against Sylvia (although the same could happen to Randi) and they purposely skew the results by lying and claiming that the results could apply to them when in fact they couldn't.

Also I believe she feels that the subjective nature of this test in particular, coupled with the fact that the 9 subjects (at the moment) know that they haven't been read is more likely to lead to this than say in the Yellow Bamboo case (where the person either falls over or they dont).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Let me get this right, Claus. You required all the people who've submitted article to Skeptic Report to...

Do they sign a notarized document guaranteeing this to you, or what?

Of course not. If you write for a skeptical magazine, you have to realize that your article will be subjected to criticism, and that you should answer your critics. It comes with the territory.

Originally posted by Clancie
As the saying in the game goes, "I doubt it." But, of course, there are many writers here at JREF who have written for SR so I'm sure they can chime in here and say that, yes, you have extracted this promise from them, too.

They all have accepted that they must face criticism, should it occur. As I recall, you yourself have criticized articles, and, in those cases where the authors were also on JREF, gotten replies from them. Why do you refuse to do the same?

Originally posted by Clancie
As the saying goes, "I'll believe it when I see it." I have never heard of telling people what and how to think in exchange for them submitting an (unpaid even) article.

I am not telling anyone what and how to think. I am asking them to be open to criticism of what and how they think.

Did you really expect to have your article published, and then not be challenged? Did you expect not to be required to answer to criticism?


Originally posted by Clancie
(1) It tests the cold reading hypothesis, not the paranormal claim (of mediumship).

What is the difference between these two? What does it matter, if Sylvia has agreed to it?

Originally posted by Clancie
(2) It stacks the deck by having only one (1) reading of the ten people done. Yet the results (i.e. "cold reading, yes or no?") are determined by the answers of nine (9) people who were not read and who (according to Randi's wording) know they were not read.

This stacks the deck very much in favor of Sylvia.

Originally posted by Clancie
(3) It stacks the deck against the claimant by saying the test will not be subjective and no judging is required and yet....the evaluation is highly subjective (in looking for cold reading) and judging is -definitely- being required;

But in a test of mediumship, aren't we supposed to let the sitters decide - subjectively, that is - what is a hit, and what is not a hit?

Originally posted by Clancie
(4) It stacks the deck further because...Where does he come up with the odds of succeeding at what he's proposed as 50:1? On what basis has he calculated this? This claim of Randi's makes no sense statistically at all.

As always, the statistics are left to the statisticians.

Originally posted by Clancie
(5) He stacks the deck further because he selects the 10...and he also selects (supposedly at "random") the one person who is read and the nine who aren't but who evaluate the reading to see how much it could apply to them.

Well, Schwartz also selected the sitters, so I can't see why you have a problem with that. I would like to know what you base your question that the selection will not be random on.

Originally posted by Clancie
In other words, the protocol in no way rules out the possibility of collusion, cheating...whatever you call it. That doesn't mean anyone is cheating, but a test design should rule it out, not seem to actually be creating opportunities for collusion, as this one does.

What would you do to prevent collusion, then? Let's hear suggestions.

Originally posted by Clancie
(6) The "misdirection" comes in with the whole bit about the 10 people "believing in Sylvia's powers". A test should be designed so it doesn't matter if they believe or not. (And if he wants them to "believe"--why not let Sylvia, instead of Randi, select them?)

No, that is not "misdirection", it is simply preventing Sylvia from later claiming that she was up against skeptics, biased against her.

Originally posted by Clancie
That whole part is just put in there to show, "Look! I've even said they're believers! What an advantage for her!" That's just misdirection, imo, and is only included to draw attention from the problems I've listed above.

Not at all. Nobody is trying to hide anything.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie

First, I never said a real medium would not be able to pass it. I said it is not a test of the claim of mediumship.


That is the whole issue right there.

Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.
Would a non-medium be able to pass the test? Possibly, due to a poor choice of result criteria.

That makes it a test of a medium's abilities. It also makes it possible that Randi could be scammed, but that's not your concern.

[TheBoyPaj]

Archangel, I think we all agree that for the test to have credibility, the ten participants must have no contact with Sylvia. The protocol as described implies this, but could be taken to mean that one person listens to her reading live on the phone while the others hear a recording. It might be possible that one could determine from this that one was the correct person.

In fact, all ten should hear the same recording, after the event.

[Clancie]

Posted by The Boy Paj

Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.
And you know this...how?

[TheBoyPaj]

Because they would be able to produce an accurate reading specific to a particular sitter. Isn't that what mediums claim to do?
Sylvia certainly does.

[Archangel]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Archangel, I think we all agree that for the test to have credibility, the ten participants must have no contact with Sylvia. The protocol as described implies this, but could be taken to mean that one person listens to her reading live on the phone while the others hear a recording. It might be possible that one could determine from this that one was the correct person.


I read the protocol the same way as Clancie, and if it is meant to be the way that you've read it, it is poorly written.

BTW I think that her main point is that had Schwartz put up this protocol Claus et al would have pounced on all of the mistakes in it immediately.

I personally feel that all supposed psychics are frauds, however just because people like Schwartz use flawed protocols, doesnt mean that the skeptics should resort to the same level of tactics.


Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
In fact, all ten should hear the same recording, after the event.

I actually think that it should be a written transcript for one main reason, when Sylvia, JE and the rest of that insipid bunch of frauds work, they speak fast and the subjects may not pick up all of what is being said, however with a written transcript they can read through it at their own pace.

[Loki]

Clancie,

(The Boy Paj wrote) : Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.

(Clancie wrote):And you know this...how?
Because a 'true medium' should be able to do what Steve Grenard claims Camille Walsh did for him - an hour long reading with 195 individual, specific, and 100% accurate items of information, including the medium "identifying" the spirit in a photo. Not vague names, not approximate dates, not feel-good expressions of love - clear details, and ALL accuarate. If Walsh and Sylvia ARE both true mediums, then Sylvia is clearly not very good at it.

[Clancie]

The Boy Paj wrote : Would a true medium be able to pass the test? Yes. Easily.

Clancie wrote:And you know this...how?

Loki wrote:

Because a 'true medium' should be able to do what Steve Grenard claims Camille Walsh did for him - an hour long reading with 195 individual, specific, and 100% accurate items of information, including the medium "identifying" the spirit in a photo.
Well, Loki, if you are using Mrs. Walsh as the standard for a "true medium", I guess that must mean that you fully accept the accuracy of Steve's account.

:)

Otherwise, how can you hold up Steve's description of Mrs. Walsh's reading as the basis for saying that, of course, "a true medium could easily pass..." etc.? So you accept Mrs. Walsh as a true medium, who has already demonstrated what others who make the claim of mediumship can fairly be expected to do...yes?

[Loki]

Clancie,

So you accept Mrs. Walsh as a true medium, who has already demonstrated what others who make the claim of mediumship can fairly be expected to do...yes?
Nice try!

if you are using Mrs. Walsh as the standard for a "true medium", ...
Yes, I do think she 'sets the standard'. Why bother testing more ambiguous claims when Walsh's abilities (if true) are clear and testable? Of course, if we test Walsh and she fails, then we could conclude that the standard was never that high, and the 'bar lowers' back towards the Sylvia level - back into the 'hard to be sure ... might means this ... all a bit subjective' range. But I'd remind you that Walsh is out forward by pro-medium supporters like Steve as an example of what I'm failing to see. Are you suggesting that she sounds 'too good to be true'?

...I guess that must mean that you fully accept the accuracy of Steve's account.
Well, lets just say I'm (a) not prepared to say Steve is lying about this reading, and (b) I see no reason to think that Steve is immune to the sort of 'selective memory' that can affect us all. For now, I accept that Steve's account is his true recollection of what happened. That's not the same as saying it did happen just as he remembers it.


But enough of this banter - the heart of your question is "how do we know what test a true medium can pass." You're correct - we don't really know, because none of them seem keen to be tested. Always too busy preparing for their next seminar, TV show appearance, book launch or $600 an hour private reading. Never any time to try and establish the nature, limits and details of their own abilities. Sylvia has time to take an annual 'spiritual pilgrimage' to the middle east at $4000 a head, but no time to see if she can do better than chance on a simple '1 in 10' reading trial.

{okay now you've got me started ... rant mode engaged....}
Sylvia is a fake, a fraud, a scumbag. Reading Sylvia's Montel transcripts is simultaneously hilarious, frustrating, saddening, and scary. And as long as 'true mediums' are unwilling to denounce such blatant deception, then they are going to be tarred with the same brush as far as I'm concerned. Let 'mediumship', if it wants to be taken seriously, clean up it's own act. Let Robertson and Roy spend some time and energy rejecting Sylvia.

Okay, I feel (a little) better now....

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

So, are you going to write the article or not?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

So, are you going to write the article or not?

Are you a betting man Claus?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Are you a betting man Claus?

Nope.

[Cynical]

Why should he bet? He thinks he knows everything there is to know. CF is the type of person who thinks that anything HE doesn't know is not worth knowing.

Hey, Claus Flodin! Bottoms up!:roll:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I just want to make it crystal clear to you: I do not want to provide space for someone who shuts herself off to arguments contrary to her own convictions. And be honest now: You have done that in the past, which is why I raise this point. Such behavior would be very much against the idea behind SkepticReport. SkepticReport is not a soap box for anyone. When you get an article published, it comes with the prize of open-mindedness: You accept the responsibility that your own views are challenged - and that you cannot decide who challenges them. You have to answer your critics, whatever points they raise, and whoever they may be.

I simply need a confirmation from you: Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?
Claus, here is some friendly advice that you can take or leave. I think that by trying to extract this pledge from Clancie, you are just going to push her into not writing the article.

My advice would be to let her write the article, and if it has skeptical merit, publish it. Questions can be directed to her about the article. If she doesn't answer them, then it is up to the rest of us to interpret the non-answer. I will point out that she has answered questions about her position on the test in this thread.

I, for one, would be interested in an article outlining her criticisms of the protocol. I would be much more interested if the article also included specific suggestions about how it could be improved.

Mr. Larsen, you simply cannot control (nor should you be expected to control) how the authors of the various articles respond to comments and criticisms. You should just try and make sure that the articles themselves are of a quality you are comfortable with. Let the articles speak for themselves, and let how the authors respond spek for itself as well.

Just my 2 cents.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...

But, since it's Randi's...it gets a "pass".....

That is really, really unfair. You and I have discussed this test in the past (both here and at TVTalkshows) and as you know I do agree that as proposed the test could be improved.

The only "pass" I'll grant is that until SB actually gets involved (or her representatives) we do not know what the final test would actually be.

Until then I'll reserve judgment.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Thanz
...snip...

Mr. Larsen, you simply cannot control (nor should you be expected to control) how the authors of the various articles respond to comments and criticisms. You should just try and make sure that the articles themselves are of a quality you are comfortable with. Let the articles speak for themselves, and let how the authors respond spek for itself as well.

Just my 2 cents.

Just to add that when Claus was starting Skeptic Report he (and continues to do so) asked for contributions and from that time he has always stipulated that:

1) Real name must be used
2) A real email address must be given

One of the reasons I haven't (in the past) wrote anything for him was because I didn't want my real identity known.

If someone isn't willing to abide by Claus's stipulations then he doesn't publish (or at least that is my understanding), so if Clancie is willing to provide an article I think Claus is making sure she realises that there wont be any exception made.

(And yes Claus the reason for being mysterious is no longer there so I promise within the next 4 weeks to submit something!)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Claus, here is some friendly advice that you can take or leave. I think that by trying to extract this pledge from Clancie, you are just going to push her into not writing the article.

It is not my intention. If she chooses not to write the article because she has to answer to criticism, that is not my problem.

Originally posted by Thanz
My advice would be to let her write the article, and if it has skeptical merit, publish it. Questions can be directed to her about the article. If she doesn't answer them, then it is up to the rest of us to interpret the non-answer. I will point out that she has answered questions about her position on the test in this thread.

That would make SkepticReport a pulpit, not a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. I will not allow people to pontificate. SkepticReport is not for stating one's opinion, never to be questioned. Clancie has to accept that.

Originally posted by Thanz
I, for one, would be interested in an article outlining her criticisms of the protocol. I would be much more interested if the article also included specific suggestions about how it could be improved.

It would indeed be interesting. However, she has to allow criticism of her work.

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Larsen, you simply cannot control (nor should you be expected to control) how the authors of the various articles respond to comments and criticisms. You should just try and make sure that the articles themselves are of a quality you are comfortable with. Let the articles speak for themselves, and let how the authors respond spek for itself as well.

Again, I do not "control" how the authors respond. I do require them to be open-minded and open to suggestions on how they can improve, and - of course - if they are wrong.

Originally posted by Darat
1) Real name must be used
2) A real email address must be given

I must know people's real name and a real email address. I would open up for possible lawsuits, e.g. if someone stole somebody else's work and had it published as their own.

Originally posted by Darat
If someone isn't willing to abide by Claus's stipulations then he doesn't publish (or at least that is my understanding), so if Clancie is willing to provide an article I think Claus is making sure she realises that there wont be any exception made.

No exceptions. No favoritism. No freebies.

Originally posted by Darat
(And yes Claus the reason for being mysterious is no longer there so I promise within the next 4 weeks to submit something!)

...about bloody time... ;)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It is not my intention. If she chooses not to write the article because she has to answer to criticism, that is not my problem.
It may not be your intention, but I think it is certainly the effect. Clancie has clashed with many people here, and some of her adversaries have been not allways been civil and/or constructive. Requiring her to respond to every criticism, in advance, without seeing the article or the criticisms is a little too restrictive in my opinion.

That would make SkepticReport a pulpit, not a forum for skepticism and critical thinking. I will not allow people to pontificate. SkepticReport is not for stating one's opinion, never to be questioned. Clancie has to accept that.
I disagree. You should be able to control for "pontificating" in your editorial decisions. An article either shows skeptical and critical thinking or it does not. If someone submitted an article that said John Edward has to be real because he knew about that Niagara Falls feather, and then went on to talk about how great JE is, you would rightly reject it for not showing critical thinking (for basing its judgment on one hit from an edited TV program).

On the other hand, if Clancie submits an article that shows critical thinking about the test design proposed by Randi, and offers a few improvements and/or another design, how is this pontificating? How would it be less pontificating if she answered questions about it here, a site not affiliated with Skeptic Report?

Further, your format is not really designed for a discussion. The most that could happen is that you publish a rebuttal article in the next issue. People could then read both and decide for themselves. But that surely doesn't require any further input from Clancie.
It would indeed be interesting. However, she has to allow criticism of her work.
To be frank, it is not up to Clancie whether she allows criticism or not. People will criticise if they choose. You may publish a rebuttal if the criticism is good enough. These decisions are out of Clancie's hands. I think that whether or not Clancie responds to criticisms - either here or in direct emails - is irrelevant to whether an article she writes is worthy of Skeptic Report.

To put the shoe on another foot, if someone wrote a skeptical article on remote viewing, would you require them to answer every single outlandish claim/criticism put forth by Lucianarchy?

Again, I do not "control" how the authors respond. I do require them to be open-minded and open to suggestions on how they can improve, and - of course - if they are wrong.OF course. But this seems a bit more lax than the promise you seem to be trying to extract from Clancie.

I know that you are frustrated by what you see as Clancie's avoidance of questions. But I ask you to consider that whether she answers questions here or in private correspondance would do nothing to alter the value of her article for your publication. In the best of all worlds, it would provoke a discussion of the relative merits of different protocols, and I agree the discussion would be better if the author participates. But if she doesn't, it hasn't turned your publication into a pulpit for her, especially considering your ability to also publish a well reasoned rebuttal article.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
It may not be your intention, but I think it is certainly the effect. Clancie has clashed with many people here, and some of her adversaries have been not allways been civil and/or constructive. Requiring her to respond to every criticism, in advance, without seeing the article or the criticisms is a little too restrictive in my opinion.

Critical thinking is not for people who are thin-skinned. If you don't think your arguments can hold up to scrutiny, then you should not write for SkepticReport.

Originally posted by Thanz
I disagree. You should be able to control for "pontificating" in your editorial decisions. An article either shows skeptical and critical thinking or it does not. If someone submitted an article that said John Edward has to be real because he knew about that Niagara Falls feather, and then went on to talk about how great JE is, you would rightly reject it for not showing critical thinking (for basing its judgment on one hit from an edited TV program).

Your point is noted. I disagree. An article can show skeptical thinking in some parts, and the opposite in other parts. The article must be judged as a whole.

Originally posted by Thanz
On the other hand, if Clancie submits an article that shows critical thinking about the test design proposed by Randi, and offers a few improvements and/or another design, how is this pontificating? How would it be less pontificating if she answered questions about it here, a site not affiliated with Skeptic Report?

I haven't seen the article, so I cannot judge it. It would be pontificating, if she refused to answer to criticism: She would feel that her article was the final say on the matter, and nobody could ever say anything that would ever change her mind. SkepticReport would then promote close-mindedness.

Originally posted by Thanz
Further, your format is not really designed for a discussion. The most that could happen is that you publish a rebuttal article in the next issue. People could then read both and decide for themselves. But that surely doesn't require any further input from Clancie.

I did not say SkepticReport is designed for discussion. The authors must be prepared to respond to criticism, that's all.

Originally posted by Thanz
To be frank, it is not up to Clancie whether she allows criticism or not.

Of course it is. It is solely her choice.

Originally posted by Thanz
People will criticise if they choose. You may publish a rebuttal if the criticism is good enough. These decisions are out of Clancie's hands. I think that whether or not Clancie responds to criticisms - either here or in direct emails - is irrelevant to whether an article she writes is worthy of Skeptic Report.

Your point is noted. I disagree. I run SkepticReport. I provide webspace. I pay for it. I make the rules. The rules apply to everyone. There will be no exceptions for anyone.

Originally posted by Thanz
To put the shoe on another foot, if someone wrote a skeptical article on remote viewing, would you require them to answer every single outlandish claim/criticism put forth by Lucianarchy?

Now you are starting to judge points of criticism before you have seen them. It is a hypothetical discussion.

Originally posted by Thanz
OF course. But this seems a bit more lax than the promise you seem to be trying to extract from Clancie.

You are wrong. Nobody is treated differently. There will be no exceptions for anyone.

Originally posted by Thanz
I know that you are frustrated by what you see as Clancie's avoidance of questions. But I ask you to consider that whether she answers questions here or in private correspondance would do nothing to alter the value of her article for your publication. In the best of all worlds, it would provoke a discussion of the relative merits of different protocols, and I agree the discussion would be better if the author participates. But if she doesn't, it hasn't turned your publication into a pulpit for her, especially considering your ability to also publish a well reasoned rebuttal article.

Your point is noted. The rules apply to everyone. There will be no exceptions for anyone.

Do you understand that there will be no exceptions for anyone, Thanz?

[Garrette]

Claus, Thanz, Clancie:

If I may, I think there's a simple miscommunication about the requirement for an author to be open to criticism.

Claus, in your original post to Clancie it seemed to me as if you were requiring that Clancie be open to criticism on anything and everything after publication of her article, not just on the article itself. You seemed, in fact, to be mandating a lifestyle change.

Clancie's responses to you indicated that she felt the same thing.

Further posts, however, indicate that your requirement is only that the author provide a means by which readers of the article can criticize that article.

Is this correct? If so, then, Clancie, is it okay by you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
Claus, in your original post to Clancie it seemed to me as if you were requiring that Clancie be open to criticism on anything and everything after publication of her article, not just on the article itself. You seemed, in fact, to be mandating a lifestyle change.

I meant whatever is discussed in the article, of course. Glad to be able to clarify that.

Originally posted by Garrette
Further posts, however, indicate that your requirement is only that the author provide a means by which readers of the article can criticize that article.

Well, one can hope that Clancie sees the value of being open-minded also in other aspects... :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Your point is noted. I disagree. An article can show skeptical thinking in some parts, and the opposite in other parts. The article must be judged as a whole.
That's true. But hopefully, the article as a whole will be more on the side of "critical thinking" than not, or you wouldn't publish it.

I haven't seen the article, so I cannot judge it. It would be pontificating, if she refused to answer to criticism: She would feel that her article was the final say on the matter, and nobody could ever say anything that would ever change her mind. SkepticReport would then promote close-mindedness.
But the average reader of SR wouldn't really know if she responds to criticism or not. The article speaks for itself. Any response to criticism would not be at the SR site itself - it should have no bearing on whether an article at SR is pontificating, and certainly it would not mean that SR promotes close-mindedness. Even if she felt that her word was gospel on the subject, that doesn't mean that SR (or you) agree with that. She doesn't decide what the last word on the topic is at SR - you do. You can publish a rebuttal article, and that alone shows that SR is not promoting closemindedness. How could it if it published both opposing sides of the debate?

All I am saying is that one author's response or non-response to criticisms is not a reflection of the open or closed mindedness of your publication. If, however, you rejected articles that showed critical thinking but were adverse to a position you held, that might reflect on your publication. Again, I am stressing the difference between the actions of the authors of the content on your site and your actions. You are accountable for the latter, but not the former.

I did not say SkepticReport is designed for discussion. The authors must be prepared to respond to criticism, that's all. But where must they respond? Here? Privately? how is this possible to police?

Of course it is. It is solely her choice.
You are missing my point. She cannot decide whether others are critical of her article. She cannot decide if others post here critical of her article. She cannot decide if you publish a rebuttal or not.

She can only decide if she responds or not. And my point is that whether she responds or not is not a reflection on your publication, as I see it.

Now you are starting to judge points of criticism before you have seen them. It is a hypothetical discussion.
With respect, I think that you are doing the same thing. you seem to be assuming that all criticisms of her article, which isn't even written, will be vlaid and worthy of further comment. The promise that you are trying to extract from her:Do you promise to listen to critics in the future, whoever they may be, wherever the criticism may occur, and whatever the criticism is about?
This says to me that you expect her to respond to all questions, no exceptions. I'm not sure I'd agree to that in advance either. I would agree to read and consider all responses to an article I wrote, but not necessarily respond to all.

It is the all encompassing wording that I think is driving her away. If you just ask her to be open to discussing the various points raised by her article, I think you would get a more favourable response. This may be all you are asking her in any event, but it certainly looks more severe to me.

Do you understand that there will be no exceptions for anyone, Thanz?
Sure, and I wouldn't ask for exceptions for anyone. It just seems to me that you are trying to box Clancie into an agreement that may go further than what you would ask of someone else, given your history.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
That's true. But hopefully, the article as a whole will be more on the side of "critical thinking" than not, or you wouldn't publish it.

Of course not.

Originally posted by Thanz
But the average reader of SR wouldn't really know if she responds to criticism or not. The article speaks for itself. Any response to criticism would not be at the SR site itself - it should have no bearing on whether an article at SR is pontificating, and certainly it would not mean that SR promotes close-mindedness. Even if she felt that her word was gospel on the subject, that doesn't mean that SR (or you) agree with that. She doesn't decide what the last word on the topic is at SR - you do. You can publish a rebuttal article, and that alone shows that SR is not promoting closemindedness. How could it if it published both opposing sides of the debate?

Your objection is flawed. Response to criticism could very well take place at SR. It could take place here. Everywhere.

Originally posted by Thanz
All I am saying is that one author's response or non-response to criticisms is not a reflection of the open or closed mindedness of your publication. If, however, you rejected articles that showed critical thinking but were adverse to a position you held, that might reflect on your publication. Again, I am stressing the difference between the actions of the authors of the content on your site and your actions. You are accountable for the latter, but not the former.

Yes, I am. Not only could I be sued for publishing an article which the author hadn't written. I would also jeopardize the goal of SkepticReport. I will not do that.

Originally posted by Thanz
But where must they respond? Here? Privately? how is this possible to police?

Wherever the author is, and questions about the article is put. Critical thinking requires an open mind wherever you are.

Originally posted by Thanz
You are missing my point. She cannot decide whether others are critical of her article. She cannot decide if others post here critical of her article. She cannot decide if you publish a rebuttal or not.

True.

Originally posted by Thanz
She can only decide if she responds or not. And my point is that whether she responds or not is not a reflection on your publication, as I see it.

And I have now several times explained that I disagree. It does reflect on SkepticReport.

Originally posted by Thanz
With respect, I think that you are doing the same thing. you seem to be assuming that all criticisms of her article, which isn't even written, will be vlaid and worthy of further comment. The promise that you are trying to extract from her:

I should have been more clear that it was about the article.

Originally posted by Thanz
Sure, and I wouldn't ask for exceptions for anyone. It just seems to me that you are trying to box Clancie into an agreement that may go further than what you would ask of someone else, given your history.

Well, I am not. So there is not much for Clancie to object to. Unless, of course, that she really feels that she won't respond to criticism about her article. Perhaps it is time for wait for what Clancie says.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Archangel
BTW I think that her main point is that had Schwartz put up this protocol Claus et al would have pounced on all of the mistakes in it immediately.

I personally feel that all supposed psychics are frauds, however just because people like Schwartz use flawed protocols, doesnt mean that the skeptics should resort to the same level of tactics.


Yes, if this test was proposed by Schwartz then I would reject it. Because it is too easy for a non-medium to pass it. How does that equate to sneaky tactics by Randi? Why would he want to propose a test where he might be forced to give the dough to someone with no ability at all?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by davidhorman
Not sure I get this part (this is part of what Randi wrote, not what Clancie wrote). Surely there's only a 2/10 chance that at least eight of the sitters will score the reading lower than the true sitter?

I was curious about this, so I just crunched some numbers. It's not 2/10 because not all the scores are going to be different, and any scores which match the target score will also count against Sylvia.

There might be a neat way to work this out, but I chose brute force. I simulated what would happen if ten people chose totally random numbers between zero and ten. I picked an arbitrary "person", and counted how many of the other scores were below that one.

I repeated this 10,000 times. 15.59% of those trials had 8 or more scores lower than the target person. That would not be good for Randi!

So I thought, maybe Randi was banking on the fact that not many subjects are going to score the reading a "zero". After all, the general nature of most readings combined with Randi's stipulation that all subjects must be believers might mean that they choose higher numbers.

The results were:

Score range 3 to 10: 13% challenges won
Score range 4 to 10: 12.9% challenges won
Score range 5 to 10: 11.7% challenges won

So, it's not quite as foolhardy as it sounds, but still pretty risky.

[Clancie]

Paj,

If the one person who is read, scores his reading a "10", Sylvia automatically passes.

And if that sitter -doesn't- score her a "10", and 8 of the 9 people -not- read -do- then she automatically fails.

That's why collusion has to be ruled out in the protocol (and, just to repeat...it isn't).

[Clancie]

Posted by Garrette

If I may, I think there's a simple miscommunication about the requirement for an author to be open to criticism.

Claus, in your original post to Clancie it seemed to me as if you were requiring that Clancie be open to criticism on anything and everything after publication of her article, not just on the article itself. ...Clancie's responses to you indicated that she felt the same thing.
Yes.

Further posts, however, indicate that your requirement is only that the author provide a means by which readers of the article can criticize that article.
Well, this is a good clarification, Garrette, but I'm still confused. In the past, Claus has only said he requires authors to make an email address available and recommends that discussions/questions regarding the article be handled with the author via email. That still does not seem consistent what he is stipulating to me here in this thread....
Posted by CFLarsen

You have to answer your critics, whatever points they raise, and whoever they may be.

I simply need a confirmation from you: Do you promise to listen to critics in the future,

whoever they may be,

wherever the criticism may occur, and

whatever the criticism is about?
This kind of stipulation seems very inconsistent with his usual attitude of "If you have a question, email the author." End of statement--and his philosophy that SR is an open forum for skeptical writing, not a message board and not an adjunct of JREF boards either.

[TheBoyPaj]

Collusion must be ruled out, yes. It would be possible for the volunteers to rig the test to fail by agreeing in advance that everyone should vote 6 or 7, for instance. I'm not sure how they could rig it to pass, unless they were all in direct contact during the test. They wouldn't know which of them should vote higher than the rest. Can anyone suggest a way to prevent such actions when phone contact is demanded?

But... if the chosen person scores a 10, Sylvia does not automatically win. If 2 other people also give a 10 then she has not achieved 8 people with a lower score.

Also, she loses if 3 other people score the reading higher or equal to the chosen sitter. Not 8.

[Archangel]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


Yes, if this test was proposed by Schwartz then I would reject it. Because it is too easy for a non-medium to pass it. How does that equate to sneaky tactics by Randi? Why would he want to propose a test where he might be forced to give the dough to someone with no ability at all?

Sorry I should have been more clear, I didnt mean resorting to sneaky tactics, I actually meant bad protocols.

This challenge with Sylvia has been going on for well over a year, and the protocols were introduced IIRC in the second confrontation that JR had with SB, so he obviously had time to think them over, however with the sloppy protocols that he agreed to at the time of the show SB may have been able to pass the challenge through luck alone, which she would have used to blow her own horn.

Maybe JR got flustered with the BS Sylvia was spouting off and came up with an easier protocol to see if she would fall for it.

[TheBoyPaj]

There you go again. "Fall for it"

Fall for what? If someone offered me a one in ten (at worst) chance of a million dollars, I'd jump at it!

Hey, that's a thought. I wonder if he'd offer me the same protocol?
:D

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

Collusion must be ruled out, yes. It would be possible for the volunteers to rig the test to fail by agreeing in advance that everyone should vote 6 or 7, for instance.
Not just the possibility of collusion with each other, Paj. I mean collusion with the test designer (the sitter selection process does not rule this out; in fact, it makes it possible.).

And, since the details of the protocol are easily known in advance, including the scoring of it, people could easily throw the results as I've said. It would only take two.

I'm not sure how they could rig it to pass, unless they were all in direct contact during the test.
Well, not a guarantee, but the best thing is to just vote "0". Then if the sitter gives Sylvia -anything- higher, she passes.

But... if the chosen person scores a 10, Sylvia does not automatically win. If 2 other people also give a 10 then she has not achieved 8 people with a lower score.
Ah, yes, yet another flaw. Think about it, Paj. If Sylvia is such a great medium that she gets a "10" from her sitter, that's really all she can possibly do to demonstrate mediumship to Randi in this test...and yet...she still can lose.

Also, she loses if 3 other people score the reading higher or equal to the chosen sitter. Not 8.

How so? Randi clearly says
...eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done.
Two higher or equal) scores from the non-read people and Sylvia loses.

If the sitter gives it an "9" and only 2 people give it a "10" and everyone else gives it a "3"....Sylvia still loses. (Again, this is the major problem of possible collusion, since only two people are needed to prevent her from winning, no matter how well she does).

[Loki]

I am totally with Thanz on this one.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Reginald,

No, but more to the point, none of what you say is an excuse for a poorly designed test, one way or the other.

Randi says his Challenge tests the claim, fairly, with results that are statistically better than chance, in a way that requires no judging.

That's -his- claim. My point is that, no, that's not what he's trying to do at all.

Really, I don't see why there's so much resistance to facing up to these flaws in Randi's testing protocol--and so many efforts to change the issue into a discussion of whether paranormal abilities are real or not :confused:--but apparently, there is.

Firstly, so far as I can tell everyone has agreed with you that the protocol is not good. They simply disagree on what you say Randi's intentions are. Now you say he's testing for cold reading instead of mediumship. True, and I think you've been given good reasons why this is logical. Sylvia so far as I know has not provided Randi with an indepth description of her mediumship communication process, so Randi obviously cannot ahead of time design a test based on it. So he designed one (and yes the consensus is poorly) that tested his assumption that she was cold reading. Now if Sylvia had provided an indepth description of her process of mediumship, and asked Randi to base a test around that instead, well then I assume he would do so. But she hasn't, she instead agreed to the test as he described it.

You, in my opinion, derailed this thread in the first place by taking the focus away from the bad protocol in the test linked and switched it to Randi's protocol, which has nothing to do with the test originally linked to, so far as I know. You complained that the protocol was bad, and pretty much everyone agrees with you. Most people however point out that the test does not work in Randi's favour (at least potentially), so what is it that your reading his intent to be? If its that he's not testing mediumship as Sylvia would describe it then that's a null point because she has not given him her process for mediumship. And its quite obvious that the process of mediumship is largely unknown, and not consistent between practitioners anyway. So what else about his intent has gotten you so up in arms?

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

You, in my opinion, derailed this thread in the first place by taking the focus away from the bad protocol in the test linked and switched it to Randi's protocol, which has nothing to do with the test originally linked to, so far as I know.
Actually, I disagree. I brought it up in principle--to see whether the criticism of R&R was being consistent or not when applied to other test design. The original post was....

Nyarlathotep

The whole test (R&R) relied on the sitter saying whether felt that what the medium was saying "applied to them". Besides the fact that that is a hopelessly vague criteria for any sort of scientific test, there is the fact that this opens it up to all manner of sitter bias.

Clancie

Well, I'm wondering how you feel about that aspect of Randi's "Sylvia Challenge"?
It would have been easy to address this and then return to the other test, but no one did. Instead, various people began interrogating me about my comments about the Challenge (and, as usual, answers from me lead to further questions, etc. etc. If I ignore specific questions, I'm "avoiding the hard questions". If I address them, I'm "derailing the thread." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

At no time, did conversation return to R&R and -I- redirected it to Randi.


Firstly, so far as I can tell everyone has agreed with you that the protocol is not good.
What choice is there? It isn't.

However, that hasn't prevented considerable rationalization of the flaws--everything from it being "an outline" (it wasn't) to "if Sylvia is a real medium she could pass any challenge."



Now you say he's testing for cold reading instead of mediumship. True, and I think you've been given good reasons why this is logical.
No. I haven't.

He says the claimant makes a claim and the Challenge tests that claim. Period. (And no judging required--the results are self evident).

The "paranormal claim" is -not- "cold reading". It is mediumship. So it is wrong for the test to be designed to measure cold reading (and very subjectively, at that). It's really just that simple. As I'm sure Randi knows (since he, of all people, knows full well that a test of cold reading is not a test of mediumship .

[Loki]

voidx,

... by taking the focus away from the bad protocol in the test linked...
IMO the R&R protocol is a good one. The issues are likely to revolve around (a) did they follow the protocol strictly and (b) how are the results being interpreted.

[Nyarlathotep]

So ruling out cold reading=testing cold reading=not a test of mediumship?

How is eliminating those things that are not mediumship not testing for mediumship? Has someone invented a ghost detector and if so are proton packs far behind?

[Loki]

Clancie,

However, that hasn't prevented considerable rationalization of the flaws--everything from it being "an outline" (it wasn't) to "if Sylvia is a real medium she could pass any challenge."
I feel compelled to answer, since the "ouline" comment is one I've made, and the "pass any test" statement appears to possibily refer to my Camille Walsh comments.

We'll have to disagree about the "outline" thing, Clancie. I watched the LKL appearance, and was disappointed that Randi's proposal seemed 'unclear' - disappointed because I felt it weakened his case, and the entire thing is about "public relations". The LKL appearance was discussed on the Forums over the next few days, and the concensus was that "he couldn't possibly have meant EXACTLY what he said - it's too flawed". This is still the case - I believe Randi would never agree to test Sylvia according to the letter of proposal he made on LKL. Chance alone would give Sylvia a strong possibility of winning. If and when Sylvia decides to be tested, the REAL protocol - based entirely on the LKL proposal, but with the details straigthened out - will be developed, agreed to, and published.

But this misses the point!!! Sylvia and Randi know exactly who they are, and what the 'game' is they are engaged in. Sylvia's a fraud, she knows it, Randi knows it, and she knows he knows it! There is no legitimate testing to be done here - this is just posturing by both parties to try and win the PR battle. If you watched the LKL appearance, you would have seen Sylvia reveal her true self and motives - the "anti-god' opening comments; the innuendo at the end about Randi and "the police" and her "knowing somethings". A week after the appearance, Sylvia's web site carried a link to a web site that once again raised the Randi/sex-scandal allegations, including transcripts of the phone taps. She's playing to win - Randi can hurt her business bad, and she has no intentions of going down quietly.

Sorry Clancie, but I think you're being far too "academic" about this. IMO Randi and Sylvia both know the truth, and Randi was "slack" in his test proposal because he knows damn well it will never NEVER come to that.

So it is wrong for the test to be designed to measure cold reading (and very subjectively, at that).
It's not wrong, it's essential. It's the only way forward. That's why R&R take the same approach as Randi.

It's really just that simple. As I'm sure Randi knows (since he, of all people, knows full well that a test of cold reading is not a test of mediumship .
There is no such thing as a test of mediumship! Can you explain to me ANY way in which any pro-mediumship researcher has proposed to control for "super-psi" versus "after death communications"? ALL pro-ADC research is 'negative' based, in that it simply works by saying "we've eliminated all other answers, so ADC must be the one remaining possibility". Of course, the problem with this approach is that it offers no way of separating ANY 'paranormal' abilities from each other. Randi's test is simply designed to show that Sylvia HASN"T eliminated all possibilities.

Again, this is semantics - no one can "test mediumship" since no one can define or describe the mechanism and it's limitations. The R&R test is NOT a test of mediumship, it's a test to eliminate cold reading and 'generic reading'. The principle is "if we elimiante these, what's left? - ADC!". Randi's test is identical - it seeks to show that Sylvia CANNOT eliminate the simple possibility of "generic readings". If Sylvia took and passed the Randi test, it would not "prove" ADC, it would disprove "generic reading" (of course, this assumes a much better 'Randi test" that the documented one!)

[Clancie]

Posted by Loki

...and the "pass any test" statement appears to possibily refer to my Camille Walsh comments.
Hi Loki,

Just to clarify. I was actually thinking of a post by the Boy Paj.
Posted by The Boy Paj

But actually, what does it matter if it's a test for mediumship or just a protocol to remove the possibility of cold reading/generalised readings? If she can do what she claims (and she agreed to the protocol, remember?), she can win the million. And that is the point. Randi doesn't care HOW you do it. All that matters is that you do something that would not be possible by normal means.
And we agree about R&R, in what you said here:
Posted by Loki

IMO the R&R protocol is a good one. The issues are likely to revolve around (a) did they follow the protocol strictly and (b) how are the results being interpreted.

As for Sylvia's part in the Challenge protocol Randi proposed, I'm much more interested in what we can learn from Randi's idea of test design (and whether people are consistent in their standards of good paranormal testing with regard to it) than I am about Sylvia. I see her response, lack of response, ability, lack of ability as totally and completely irrelevant to the points I'm interested in regarding the Challenge.

[Iamme]

Clancie---Is the JE board down right now?

[Clancie]

Hi Iamme,

Just checked and...Yes, it is.

[Loki]

Clancie,

I think you understand me, but just to be sure...

As for Sylvia's part in the Challenge protocol Randi proposed, I'm much more interested in what we can learn from Randi's idea of test design (and whether people are consistent in their standards of good paranormal testing with regard to it) than I am about Sylvia.
I understand, but I think you're picking a poor example to work from if your proposal is to "Analysis Randi's general approach to testing claims by closely examining his approach to testing a specific claim - in this case, the Sylvia claim". I believe in this particular case the protocol put up Randi is flawed NOT becuase Randi doesn't know it, NOT because he doesn't care about proper testing protocols, but because he knew it was a meaningless offer. Sylvia wasn't going to touch it no matter what he said, so why bother making it a 'tight' and 'formal' testing protocol? They were sparing, trying to score PR points off each other. It wasn't, and isn't ever, going to go any further.

If there's anything to learn about Randi from examining this specific case, I think it's that he (a) only has so many hours in the day, so he has to spend his time where it's worth spending and (b) he really really dislikes Sylvia, and doesn't for one second have any illusions about what she is and what she does.

I see her response, lack of response, ability, lack of ability as totally and completely irrelevant to the points I'm interested in regarding the Challenge.
Feel free to draw some general conclusions about Randi's 'testing methodologies' from the Sylvia example if you wish - but I still feel your barking up the wrong tree here. This specific case is about "how Randi chooses to deal with Sylvia" not "how Randi chooses to test claims" - but you can of course disagree!

[Archangel]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
There you go again. "Fall for it"

Fall for what? If someone offered me a one in ten (at worst) chance of a million dollars, I'd jump at it!

Hey, that's a thought. I wonder if he'd offer me the same protocol?
:D

Sheesh more reading an ulterior meaning into something that had no ulterior motive.

I was meaning fall for it, in her thinking that the odds were better than they are and thus losing her cash cow (with the cow bit being redundant when discussing SB) due to her own greed.


I know I would have jumped at the chance for that protocol if I was a psychic (assuming its real), 20 minutes work for a million dollars (assuming that JR was willing to forgo the prelim-test for SB).
Obviously SB didnt like the fact that she would most likely fail and lose her lucrative business.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, this is a good clarification, Garrette, but I'm still confused. In the past, Claus has only said he requires authors to make an email address available and recommends that discussions/questions regarding the article be handled with the author via email. That still does not seem consistent what he is stipulating to me here in this thread....

I provided a clarification. Email is by far the easiest way to get someone's attention on the Internet. It also helps readers connect with the authors directly. However, it follows, that if the author is already posting here, or anywhere else, or - for that matter - makes a public appearance, the author should be open to questions about the article.

It encourages a free debate, a free exchange of ideas, and the acceptance that you could be wrong.

How can you possibly object to that?

Originally posted by Clancie
This kind of stipulation seems very inconsistent with his usual attitude of "If you have a question, email the author." End of statement--and his philosophy that SR is an open forum for skeptical writing, not a message board and not an adjunct of JREF boards either.

It is very consistent with my usual "attitude": If you have a question, email the author. I also said that SkepticReport is not a message board.

Clancie, it seems to me that you have now put me back on ignore. If you have, then I find it extremely disingenious of you to ignore my explanations and clarifications.

You seem determined to misunderstand my point. You seem determined to nitpick at certain wordings, when explanations and clarifications are there in abundance. You just don't want to read them.

I have offered to publish an article of yours in SkepticReport, a magazine for skepticism and critical thinking, you asked if I would publish it, and I said yes.

What did you expect? If you thought you could publish and walk away, you were wrong. If you thought you would never have to answer to criticism, you were wrong. If you thought you could use SkepticReport as a pulpit, you were wrong.

Write the article. It will be published, if it has skeptical value. Be open-minded. Answer your critics. Just like everybody else. No freebies. No favors. No exceptions.

How can you possibly object to that?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, not a guarantee, but the best thing is to just vote "0". Then if the sitter gives Sylvia -anything- higher, she passes.


But they don't know in advance which one is the sitter.
How would they know whether to vote zrero, or higher?

[quote]Ah, yes, yet another flaw. Think about it, Paj. If Sylvia is such a great medium that she gets a "10" from her sitter, that's really all she can possibly do to demonstrate mediumship to Randi in this test...and yet...she still can lose.


Yes. If she gives a reading which is so general that it applies to everyone then 2 more people might also score it ten. That would be a valid fail because her readings should be more specific than that.

But I agree that collusion must somehow be eliminated in the interests of both parties.

[Darat]

(Deleted since some external force made me post into the wrong thread! Well must have been external otherwise I'd have to admit to making a mistake.)

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, I disagree. I brought it up in principle--to see whether the criticism of R&R was being consistent or not when applied to other test design.

When it would have been just as productive to deal with the criticisms given about the R&R test. However, you jumped in so quick redirecting the focus to Randi's test design that no one really had a chance to make a comment on the R&R test design. Although some have still commented on it.


It would have been easy to address this and then return to the other test, but no one did. Instead, various people began interrogating me about my comments about the Challenge (and, as usual, answers from me lead to further questions, etc. etc. If I ignore specific questions, I'm "avoiding the hard questions". If I address them, I'm "derailing the thread." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Interrogating is a gross overstatement in my opinion. Most people gave the opinion that they didn't think the design read that way that they could remember, then on re-reading almost all restated that yes, as it read, it was not a good protocol. No where did I say you answering questions derailed the thread so don't put words in my mouth. However, your very first post in my opinion did change the focus of the thread, that's what we seem to disagree with.


At no time, did conversation return to R&R and -I- redirected it to Randi.

That's what tends to happen when you change the focus of the thread and then start going back and forth with people about it.


What choice is there? It isn't.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't no? :D


However, that hasn't prevented considerable rationalization of the flaws--everything from it being "an outline" (it wasn't) to "if Sylvia is a real medium she could pass any challenge."

Again focusing on the negatives.


No. I haven't.

Yes. You have. You just obviously don't agree or don't feel like addressing them. Read my post, the only part of it you didn't comment on:
Posted by voidx
True, and I think you've been given good reasons why this is logical. Sylvia so far as I know has not provided Randi with an indepth description of her mediumship communication process, so Randi obviously cannot ahead of time design a test based on it. So he designed one (and yes the consensus is poorly) that tested his assumption that she was cold reading. Now if Sylvia had provided an indepth description of her process of mediumship, and asked Randi to base a test around that instead, well then I assume he would do so. But she hasn't, she instead agreed to the test as he described it.


Posted by Clancie
He says the claimant makes a claim and the Challenge tests that claim. Period. (And no judging required--the results are self evident).

See above. Sylvia has not provided him with a specific claim. He has given her a test protocol based on something he can quantify, cold reading, and asked if she thinks she could succeed under it. She seemed to agree that she could. This is all he can do barring her giving him a description of her mediumship process. There is no seeming one-size-fits-all for the process of mediumship, everyone talks about it somewhat differently.


The "paranormal claim" is -not- "cold reading". It is mediumship. So it is wrong for the test to be designed to measure cold reading (and very subjectively, at that). It's really just that simple. As I'm sure Randi knows (since he, of all people, knows full well that a test of cold reading is not a test of mediumship .
And yet again we don't know Sylvia's specific paranormal claim. The paranormal claim varies in different degree's depending on the medium. If Randi picked one, then he'd likely have to revise it again depending on what any particular medium stated their "claimed" process was. Which again they are free to do. Everyone agree's that if Sylvia simply accepted this test, she'd be agreeing to a poor protocol.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Loki
voidx,


IMO the R&R protocol is a good one. The issues are likely to revolve around (a) did they follow the protocol strictly and (b) how are the results being interpreted.
Fair enough. I'll have to read it in more detail. However, while I understand mediums say things don't work that way, I think there should be no place for the results having to be interpreted. If this is a form of communication at all, if they can get first names, and numbers and months, why do we never see spirits giving dates of birth, or the time of their death, or their address, social insurance number, or any other large number of easily identifying information that should consistent with the process of mediumship, be able to be communicated?

Some say if a medium came up and gave this information they would just assume hot reading, and in that case rightly so. But if mediumship is true, the medium is just relaying information from the spirit communicator. Are we then to assume that all spirits are of the opinion that by giving specific numerical data to identify themselves, that it could be construed as hot reading, and therefore never think to provide it? This is such a glaring problem for the process of mediumship that it is a large factor in what makes me doubt the supposed process.

If mediumship is real, spirits not trying to give this information makes no sense. If mediumship is bunk, then it makes all the sense in the world for live mediums to not provide this information as it too easily implies cheating, or forehand knowledge of the sitter. So they go the vague subjective route. I just don't think there's a very solid way of testing this that involves interpretation of results and subjective scoring and fitting of information given.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

Yes. You have. You just obviously don't agree or don't feel like addressing them. Read my post, the only part of it you didn't comment on:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by voidx
True, and I think you've been given good reasons why this is logical. Sylvia so far as I know has not provided Randi with an indepth description of her mediumship communication process, so Randi obviously cannot ahead of time design a test based on it. So he designed one (and yes the consensus is poorly) that tested his assumption that she was cold reading. Now if Sylvia had provided an indepth description of her process of mediumship, and asked Randi to base a test around that instead, well then I assume he would do so. But she hasn't, she instead agreed to the test as he described it.
Well, if you don't want "me" to keep derailing the thread, I will simply say that, imo, Randi would leave nothing to chance, especially involving a million dollars. I think he gave the protocol -very- careful thought before suggesting it to Sylvia. To do otherwise would have been sloppy and irresponsible. He has laid out all the "hows", including participants, methodology of testing and even claimed statisitical support for the scoring and judging of the results. But...we disagree.


That's what tends to happen when you change the focus of the thread and then start going back and forth with people about it.
Yes...why don't we table this topic so "I" am not derailing it further?

As I pointed out before, the R&R protocol is a good one and is testing for mediumship, not cold reading.

[davidhorman]

Randi would leave nothing to chance, especially involving a million dollars. I think he gave the protocol -very- careful thought before suggesting it to Sylvia. To do otherwise would have been sloppy and irresponsible.

Sloppy? Isn't that exactly what you're claiming (and most of us are agreeing) the proposed protocol to be?

I don't think a protocol can be very carefully thought out and sloppy, but I suppose it depends on the thinker...

David

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, if you don't want "me" to keep derailing the thread, I will simply say that, imo, Randi would leave nothing to chance, especially involving a million dollars. I think he gave the protocol -very- careful thought before suggesting it to Sylvia. To do otherwise would have been sloppy and irresponsible. He has laid out all the "hows", including participants, methodology of testing and even claimed statisitical support for the scoring and judging of the results. But...we disagree.

My point wasn't that he gave it careful thought. I'm sure he did. The main difference here is that as it applies to the challenge, the majority of the time people submit their claim to Randi. Therefore he has the claim to work with and design a protocol around. In Sylvia's case he was pretty much calling her out, challenging her to prove herself. So in this case he did not receive a stated claim from her. Instead he based a protocol around his claim that she cold reads and asked if she could succeed at it. I think this is a rather crucial point in the whole Sylvia mess. Is the protocol poor? Yes, we all agree, so lets move on.


Yes...why don't we table this topic so "I" am not derailing it further?

As I pointed out before, the R&R protocol is a good one and is testing for mediumship, not cold reading.
My main problem with the R&R protocols is that it still relies on a large part to subjective rating of application of information to the sitter, judged by them. This is the fundamental flaw in all of these test protocols in my opinion. From what I understand the people sitting down are aware that there is a medium, that mediumship is what is being tested. This right off the bat introduces unwanted bias. People that believe will look harder, or knowing that this is information that was potentially "given" about them from a source, may try harder to make it fit, or vice versa, not make it fit. There is absolutely zero reason for the audience to be aware that mediumship is what is being tested.

If this protocol had to be used my first change would be to eliminate the possibility of any of the audience members knowing that what they were there for. I would disguise it as a simple survey about their personal information, or perhaps a personality test. Which of this information pertains to you and your life. That would be an instant improvement in my books. The second the audience has any idea the information is coming from a medium is to introduce a subjective bias.

[CPL593H]

*groan* not another thread on this!

"My main problem with the R&R protocols is that it still relies on a large part to subjective rating of application of information to the sitter, judged by them. This is the fundamental flaw in all of these test protocols in my opinion." [voidx]

OK, point taken. BUT, and it's a big BUT, There really isn't any way around this, feasibly. There is only one person who can possibly comment on the medium's performance - the sitter. Nobody else could understand the personal content. Therefore, the sitter must be invloved in the scoring process. I suppose the only adjustment which could be made to this would be the type of sitter. I can't see how this could make any difference, because these minor adjustments will never convince hardened sceptics.

"If this protocol had to be used my first change would be to eliminate the possibility of any of the audience members knowing that what they were there for. I would disguise it as a simple survey about their personal information, or perhaps a personality test. Which of this information pertains to you and your life." [voidx]

I'm trying to imagine this, honestly, but I cannot see how this could ever reasonably work; unless the audience were actually thick as two planks, it wouldn't take long for the penny to drop. The medium would have to completely change his/her style of delivery, which would most likely impact negatively on the quality of the content, and it would still be hard to fool anyone. Can you imagine being shown into a small room, given random seat numbers, and hearing through a microphone from another room such comments as; 'did your father die in a car crash?', 'I have an old woman here with bright hair', etc.? There is no way that could be disguised as a personality test.

"The second the audience has any idea the information is coming from a medium is to introduce a subjective bias." [voidx]

Agreed...I think universally. But a strict and rigid scoring system would, I think, minimise the effects to at least some extent.

As I have said before, I am all for the R/R methods. It is unfortunate that so many people in these threads comment on it without ever having read the papers! I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular but it seems that way to me. More frustrating is that most posters seem to have gathered their information from the sunday herald article linked on the other R/R-related post, which is ridiculously vague and actually incorrect. Who else has recently, is planning to in the near future or is currently doing any BETTER resarch with mediums? (Apart from Randi of course, ho ho ho)

Anyone who is interested, please try to get hold of a copy of R&R's own papers. I suggest reading paper 3 (last one) first. SPR (UK) Journal, january 2004. www.spr.ac.uk

There's my tuppence worth

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidhorman


Sloppy? Isn't that exactly what you're claiming (and most of us are agreeing) the proposed protocol to be?

I don't think a protocol can be very carefully thought out and sloppy, but I suppose it depends on the thinker...

Here are some quotes of what Clancie thinks of the test:

Originally posted by Clancie
That's his proposal...really bad, imo, in every respect.

Well, we agree that the Sylvia Challenge is too subjective...

It is riddled with subjectivity and doesn't measure what it is supposed to.

That's a terrible way to evaluate it it and makes no effort to rule out the chance of collusion.

He's got all the details in place--it's just (unlike R&R) a lousy design.

Really, I don't see why there's so much resistance to facing up to these flaws in Randi's testing protocol

It's about the issue of good test design.

If this were Schwartz's protocol, I think you'd all be pouncing on the (obvious) flaws. But, since it's Randi's...it gets a "pass".....

"Vague"? Not at all. Look on the Home page for the details. Randi is very specific and covers everything in his protocol for Sylvia. It isn't the least bit "vague" (nor is it in any way an "outline").

I think what Clancie is saying is that she feels that Randi did not do a good job of designing a test for Sylvia. Clancie has a better design. However, we cannot see it. She was going to "save" it for the article she was going to write for SkepticReport. This article, I fear, will never be written, because Clancie realized that she had to answer to criticism about it.

So, it all boils down to this:


Clancie has many complaints about the test.
Clancie claims to be able to do better.
Clancie refuses to let us see how, because she doesn't want to listen to criticism herself.


I could be wrong, of course. I could receive the article from Clancie in my email. Any day soon.

[voidx]

Originally posted by CPL593H
*groan* not another thread on this!

"My main problem with the R&R protocols is that it still relies on a large part to subjective rating of application of information to the sitter, judged by them. This is the fundamental flaw in all of these test protocols in my opinion." [voidx]

OK, point taken. BUT, and it's a big BUT, There really isn't any way around this, feasibly. There is only one person who can possibly comment on the medium's performance - the sitter. Nobody else could understand the personal content. Therefore, the sitter must be invloved in the scoring process. I suppose the only adjustment which could be made to this would be the type of sitter. I can't see how this could make any difference, because these minor adjustments will never convince hardened sceptics.

I know there's really no way around it and people are simply working with what they've got so to speak. To my mind though the fact that the performance is so geared towards the sitter is what makes me a little skeptical in the first place. If a medium could without any prompting from me give me a list of details about the spirit they were relaying information for, it would have detail, and really, without any scoring from the sitter could be shown to be accurate. "I have Tim Jones sitting with me today, and yes, I'm getting information from Tim's Uncle, name...Fred Lindsay, date of birth...April 10th, 1943. Fred is now showing me..." and on from there. We could verify this information knowing simply who the sitter is, without them having to do any judging. I know this does not happen, but there's no reason techinically it shouldn't or couldn't. And that it does not makes me suspicious of the whole process. But since I'm sure most everyone knows my take on that I'll let it rest.


"If this protocol had to be used my first change would be to eliminate the possibility of any of the audience members knowing that what they were there for. I would disguise it as a simple survey about their personal information, or perhaps a personality test. Which of this information pertains to you and your life." [voidx]

I'm trying to imagine this, honestly, but I cannot see how this could ever reasonably work; unless the audience were actually thick as two planks, it wouldn't take long for the penny to drop. The medium would have to completely change his/her style of delivery, which would most likely impact negatively on the quality of the content, and it would still be hard to fool anyone. Can you imagine being shown into a small room, given random seat numbers, and hearing through a microphone from another room such comments as; 'did your father die in a car crash?', 'I have an old woman here with bright hair', etc.? There is no way that could be disguised as a personality test.

True enough, point taken.


"The second the audience has any idea the information is coming from a medium is to introduce a subjective bias." [voidx]

Agreed...I think universally. But a strict and rigid scoring system would, I think, minimise the effects to at least some extent.

Agreed certainly. The R&R protocol itself seems quite improved from previous ones I'll admit. I haven't checked your link as of yet, but what I'd actually like to see before I judge their conclusion is just what kind of information was being given, how vague, how general, how specific. I've read the links provided in the linked threads at the start(rather than Winston's link, which I also read but found lacking in information of the actual protocol), which also had a link to Mark Tidwell's review of the protocol which seemed pretty thorough.


Anyone who is interested, please try to get hold of a copy of R&R's own papers. I suggest reading paper 3 (last one) first. SPR (UK) Journal, january 2004. www.spr.ac.uk

There's my tuppence worth
I assume the only source for these papers currently is through SPR which requires you to be a paid member? I'm not saying anything negative about this, but rather that if there was a source I could read them from without having to pay, I'd much prefer it.

[Clancie]

Posted by david horman

I don't think a protocol can be very carefully thought out and sloppy, but I suppose it depends on the thinker...
Well, this was addressed to me, and I -do- need to respond. To begin with, I never said I thought the test was sloppy. I think it is flawed, david, and that what I see as being design flaws are intentional. I think Randi's intention was absolutely to get Sylvia to agree on a test of cold reading rather than a test of mediumship. I think everything else I've criticized (and that's almost all parts of it) were thought through to support that goal.

I do not think Randi is a man who would be careless with a million dollars and the PR it involves--nor do I think he is someone who would leave important JREF matters like the Million Dollar Challenge up to chance. I think the flaws are planned and, in that, are very revealing.

But...we all disagree...so....onward with Robertson and Roy. :)

(Now, back to R&R....)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, this was addressed to me, and I -do- need to respond.

You -do- need to respond, yes.

Originally posted by Clancie
To begin with, I never said I thought the test was sloppy. I think it is flawed, david, and that what I see as being design flaws are intentional. I think Randi's intention was absolutely to get Sylvia to agree on a test of cold reading rather than a test of mediumship. I think everything else I've criticized (and that's almost all parts of it) were thought through to support that goal.

But you completely leave out that Sylvia agreed to the test. You do not decide what should be tested, so your whole string of complaints are completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by Clancie
I do not think Randi is a man who would be careless with a million dollars and the PR it involves--nor do I think he is someone who would leave important JREF matters like the Million Dollar Challenge up to chance. I think the flaws are planned and, in that, are very revealing.

Nice: Instead of criticizing Sylvia for not living up to her word (again, she accepted the challenge, so it's really none of your concern how it is designed), you cast doubt on Randi's motives.

Originally posted by Clancie
But...we all disagree...so....onward with Robertson and Roy. :)

No, no...you said you could design a better test, and you said you were ready to write it and submit it to SkepticReport. What happened to that?

[davidhorman]

To begin with, I never said I thought the test was sloppy. I think it is flawed, david, and that what I see as being design flaws are intentional. I think Randi's intention was absolutely to get Sylvia to agree on a test of cold reading rather than a test of mediumship. I think everything else I've criticized (and that's almost all parts of it) were thought through to support that goal.

So Randi deliberately flawed it by making it incredibly easy to pass (I think TheBoyPaj showed it was something like 1/6 for passing it by chance)? And by introducing factors that would unblind it to the participants, and therefore (deliberately or otherwise) again skewing it greatly in Sylvia's favour?

Why would he do that?

I think he gave the protocol -very- careful thought before suggesting it to Sylvia. To do otherwise would have been sloppy and irresponsible.

Should I read the above to mean that he very carefully thought about making it flawed/intentionally sloppy? That's not one of these sarcastic baiting questions, by the way - I'm just really not sure what you meant by it now.

David

[CPL593H]

For Voidx

you can order the papers or the whole SPR journal from the SPR, by email or phone, for a couple of pounds. You don't have to be a member. Theres nothing on teh site about it, but i posted the link for contact details etc. The jan 04 journal is the one with R/R paper 3 in it, and also a report by Keen & Playfair about investigations into the poole murdercase, involving the mediumship of Christine Holohan.

Also thank you for your response which i agree with, more or less. I was beginning to lose hope of any reasonable replies on here because most of the sceptical posters seem a tad hostile... just a tad. Not really a complaint, or a moan. But anyway, thanks.

[CPL593H]

OK i couldn't resist any longer. I just want to comment on two of CFLarsen's points in the post addressed to Clancie.

"But you completely leave out that Sylvia agreed to the test."

If she had not agreed, it would be a very bad move for her in terms of her own reputation and for the credibility of mediums everywhere. Perhaps it would have been wise, though.

"...you cast doubt on Randi's motives."

Shock horror! would that be the first time someone has cast doubt on Randi's motives? i don't think so. He makes a lot of money - his entire living - from being a sceptic (actually a skeptic, but never mind), and I'm sure he doesn't want to be proven wrong after all these years. Nor do I think he is particularly keen to part with his million. He is known for suspicious manipulation, and suspected experiment rigging, like other famous sceptics, such as Wiseman. No surprise then that one thing they all have in common is their source of income.
Is the experiment deliberately rigged for failure? I would not put it past him. Beyond that I won't comment. I'll leave the battle to Clancie, who is one of the only people making any amount of sense. Sorry for the rant but i was bursting to say it. Randi, in my eyes, is a fraud.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by CPL593H
If she had not agreed, it would be a very bad move for her in terms of her own reputation and for the credibility of mediums everywhere. Perhaps it would have been wise, though.

Disagree. She knew Randi was going to be there, so of course she knew that it was a possibility - almost a certainty - that Randi would suggest a test.

Ergo, she could simply have said: "No, sorry, I don't do spur-of-the-moment agreements". Which would have been quite acceptable. Sylvia, OTOH, was so confident, that she agreed - simply because she knew that "the story gets the frontpage, but the retraction gets mentioned on page 29, at the bottom - if at all!"

And she was right. Larry King has done nothing to follow up on his own word.

Originally posted by CPL593H
Shock horror! would that be the first time someone has cast doubt on Randi's motives? i don't think so. He makes a lot of money - his entire living - from being a sceptic (actually a skeptic, but never mind), and I'm sure he doesn't want to be proven wrong after all these years.

From what I have learned, having met the man several times, I would say that he would revel in the fact that he was part of the discovery of something as truly ground-shaking as a paranormal phenomenon being proved.

Originally posted by CPL593H
Nor do I think he is particularly keen to part with his million.

It's not "his" million. There is no way he can ever get to that money.

Originally posted by CPL593H
He is known for suspicious manipulation, and suspected experiment rigging, like other famous sceptics, such as Wiseman.

Whoa, back up! He is known for being a world-class magician, a "breed" who manipulates, rigs and generally cheats the public - but they do it in order to perpetrate a magic trick. Not to perpetrate the notion that they have paranormal abilities.

I must insist that you provide evidence that Wiseman - not a professional magician, I believe - has manipulated and/or rigged experiments. Put up or shut up.

Originally posted by CPL593H
No surprise then that one thing they all have in common is their source of income.
Is the experiment deliberately rigged for failure? I would not put it past him. Beyond that I won't comment. I'll leave the battle to Clancie, who is one of the only people making any amount of sense. Sorry for the rant but i was bursting to say it. Randi, in my eyes, is a fraud.

That, my friend, you will have to back up with evidence. Put up or shut up.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...

I do not think Randi is a man who would be careless with a million dollars and the PR it involves--nor do I think he is someone who would leave important JREF matters like the Million Dollar Challenge up to chance. I think the flaws are planned and, in that, are very revealing.

...snip...



What, if the flaws were "planned" do you think it "reveals"?

And has Randi answered any of your points? I'm assuming of course you've dropped him an email about it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CPL593H
[B]...snip...

. He makes a lot of money - his entire living - from being a sceptic (actually a skeptic, but never mind), and I'm sure he doesn't want to be proven wrong after all these years.

...snip.../B]

How much does Randi make a year? It's something I've wondered about in the past but never had the cheek to drop him an email about.

[Clancie]

Posted by CPL593H

He is known for suspicious manipulation, and suspected experiment rigging,
Project Alpha comes to mind.

And, Darat,

I don't know how much Randi makes, but JREF makes about $50,000 in interest each year from the million.

re: emailing him. Yes, why don't I. I'll let you know what he says.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know how much Randi makes, but JREF makes about $50,000 in interest each year from the million.

re: emailing him. Yes, why don't I. I'll let you know what he says.

Well let’s hope he answers!

As for the money, it's not so the JREF (their books are open for inspection I believe) it's Randi I was curious about and since CPL593H knows I was hoping he would share his info with us. (Yes it is being nosey).

[CPL593H]

OK. First off, there is no solid evidence for fraud - if there were, you would know about it, and Randi's carreer would have been most probably ruined by now. Ditto for Wiseman. (btw Wiseman is a professional magician, as far as i know. I'm sure he has some title in the UK magic circle). Wiseman had a TV program in the UK which i cant remember the name of, which was in essence an interactive show to test the psychic ability of the viewers. It did get out that the show had been rigged to prevent a positive outcome, although whether it would have got one is doubtful, owing to the nature of the show. How much truth there is in that, I can't say, but if you remember, I said that they were known for suspicious actions. As for Randi, knowing some people who have worked with him and who have spoken to me about it... I cant mention names and i'm not interested in trying to prove anything. I really do not want to get into that one. However, what he shows by his 'humorous' and fierce rubbishing of anything he cannot explain is plain ignorance, and extreme arrogance. And why not? He's got to make a living.

[Darat]

Name of the TV programme at least?

And any chance of letting us know how much Randi makes?

[CPL593H]

'makes a lot of money' does not mean the same as 'he makes $X but i'm not going to tell you how much'. Just for the record.

However, his work makes him his living. thats all that needs to be said. I'm sure he makes enough money, or he would have opted out and gone for chartered accountancy. He's come too far now to admit that he was wrong for all this time - it would be damaging for his career. lets face it, thats pretty clear. It would make a mockery of him, for all these years of fierce conviction and arrogance.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CPL593H
'makes a lot of money' does not mean the same as 'he makes $X but i'm not going to tell you how much'. Just for the record.

However, his work makes him his living. thats all that needs to be said. I'm sure he makes enough money, or he would have opted out and gone for chartered accountancy. He's come too far now to admit that he was wrong for all this time - it would be damaging for his career. lets face it, thats pretty clear. It would make a mockery of him, for all these years of fierce conviction and arrogance.

So it was just pure speculation and in the above you still can't stop speculating.

You have no idea if Randi makes a million dollars a year or ten dollars do you? For all you know Randi may be on food stamps and does what he does because of his personal convictions. He may even have a second job as a chartered accountant to pay the bills. You have no idea.

Yet despite not having any idea you were confident enough to say (highlight by me) " He makes a lot of money - his entire living - from being a sceptic ...snip..." and then in the above post couldn’t even be honest enough to say “Sorry I just made it up”.

Here you are trying to make allegations about the integrity of others whilst you are just making things up – now that is ironic.

Whilst you can only allege that Randi and others are dishonest, you've just provided the evidence that you are dishonest.

[Loki]

CPL593H,

As I have said before, I am all for the R/R methods.
I agree. The proposed protocol is very strong.

Who else has recently, is planning to in the near future or is currently doing any BETTER resarch with mediums?
The University fo Arizona?? (just kidding)

The jan 04 journal is the one with R/R paper 3 in it
Since it appears you have read this article, any chance you can post your poinion, and a few quotes of the key points? I'm still waiting for it to appear in the public archives (not interested in paying at this stage).

If she had not agreed, it would be a very bad move for her in terms of her own reputation and for the credibility of mediums everywhere.
I also link Sylvia to the "credibilty of mediums everywhere". Personally, it's a lose-lose situation for mediumship.

OK. First off, there is no solid evidence for fraud
I'd agree with you there.

It did get out that the show had been rigged to prevent a positive outcome,...
Possibly true, I guess. Any chance you can offer some details of what "get out" means in this sentence? Public statement by staffer? Or rumour generated by failed medium, perhaps?

How much truth there is in that, I can't say...
But you feel compelled to bring it up anyway. Thanks.

..., but if you remember, I said that they were known for suspicious actions.
Any chance you can expand upon "known" in that sentence? Know by whom, from what source, with what support?

I'm sure he makes enough money, or he would have opted out and gone for chartered accountancy.
Okay, so you clearly have no information on how much he makes, but you're sure it's "enough". Would you guess that it's more than Sylvia? More than Colin Fry? More than John Edward?

He's come too far now to admit that he was wrong for all this time - it would be damaging for his career.
All a medium has to do is deliver the goods. Set up a proper protocol, generate positive results, submit it to the JREF (with attendant publicity - an appearance on LKL for example) and take Randi on head to head. Either he refuses the test, and take the massive publicity 'hit', or he agrees and the medium walks away with the money. Where's the problem? If the R&R protocol is as tight as it seems, and they can find a single medium (or group of mediums, I guess) that can reliably generate positive results, then Randi MUST test them to maintian his public profile.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Project Alpha comes to mind.

Please tell us what you know about Project Alpha.

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know how much Randi makes, but JREF makes about $50,000 in interest each year from the million.

re: emailing him. Yes, why don't I. I'll let you know what he says.

Yeah, why don't you. Here's a free tip: Email Linda instead. Ask if she will tell you how much of the 50K goes to salaries, rent/mortgage, electricity, water, garbage, taxes, etc.

The JREF is not a huge organization. When I was there (passing through) I had a hard time finding the place. Randi wasn't in, the bum, but I got to see the place from the outside anyway. I could walk around the place in less than a minute. Less than 30 seconds, actually.

It's tiny!

Originally posted by CPL593H
OK. First off, there is no solid evidence for fraud - if there were, you would know about it, and Randi's carreer would have been most probably ruined by now. Ditto for Wiseman. (btw Wiseman is a professional magician, as far as i know. I'm sure he has some title in the UK magic circle). Wiseman had a TV program in the UK which i cant remember the name of, which was in essence an interactive show to test the psychic ability of the viewers. It did get out that the show had been rigged to prevent a positive outcome, although whether it would have got one is doubtful, owing to the nature of the show. How much truth there is in that, I can't say, but if you remember, I said that they were known for suspicious actions. As for Randi, knowing some people who have worked with him and who have spoken to me about it... I cant mention names and i'm not interested in trying to prove anything. I really do not want to get into that one. However, what he shows by his 'humorous' and fierce rubbishing of anything he cannot explain is plain ignorance, and extreme arrogance. And why not? He's got to make a living.


Whoa! "No solid evidence of fraud", yet you have the audacity to state: "Randi, in my eyes, is a fraud"?

You, my friend, have just revealed yourself as a vicious gossip-monger. Since you haven't "put up", I suggest you "shut up".

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...snip...

Randi wasn't in, the bum,

...snip...

He must have been out packing bags at the supermarket to help make ends meet... ;)

[Ed]

5% on $1,000,000? With no risk to the principle?

Where?