The "Process" of John Edward [Archive] - Page 2

voidx

12th August 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
Regarding JE's show, I'm a little confused. I've heard believers on this board agree on many occasions that the only way to determine if JE is a real medium would be through valid scientific testing, and "Crossing Over" doesn't really prove anything (there is, after all nothing scientific about an edited program). And since JE has never been tested (and spare me any reference to the b.s. Schwartz "study"), we are all supposed to concede that no one can really sure whether he is real or not.

Yet, these same believers constantly point to his many "hits" on his TV show as proof as his legitimacy as a medium.

It seems to me you can't have it both ways. Either you reject his show as a source of proof (which strikes me as being the only logical approach) or you accept "Crossing Over" as a valid way to determine the legitimacy of JE as a real medium. In which case, your credibility as any kind of skeptic would be seriously compromised.

So, can we all agree, once and for all, that JE's show proves nothing.
Agreed. Some can take it that it "suggests" the "possibility" of something not mundane, however it proves nothing.

CFLarsen

12th August 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
I understand Instigator, but I think a better wording might have been "don't take Neo's word for it," instead of "Don't Listen to Neo." But, that is between you two, I am just an observer.

Perhaps, in time, you will actually contribute with something valuable to the discussions here, in a skeptical sense. Your whole output here seems to consist of nothing else but pointing out what you don't like about other posters, tell them how they should behave, and what they should think and say. You seem to have chosen the position as the Miss Manners of this board.

Just an observation.

TLN

12th August 2003, 10:49 AM

SteveGrenard

12th August 2003, 10:54 AM

KG: So, can we all agree, once and for all, that JE's show proves nothing.

Exactly. This is absolutely correct but there is negative bias from the so-called skeptic side also which keeps bringing up JE's performance on television as evidence of his cold reading, hot reading or guessing (warm reading). It is meaningless from both sides of the aisle.

BillHoyt

12th August 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Exactly. This is absolutely correct but there is negative bias from the so-called skeptic side also which keeps bringing up JE's performance on television as evidence of his cold reading, hot reading or guessing (warm reading). It is meaningless from both sides of the aisle.
Sorry, Steve, but no dice. It is simply not negative bias. It is, simply, Occam's razor at work. When I think there is nobody in my garage and yet I hear a sound from inside, I don't assume there is a unicorn in my garage. I go with more parsimonious hypotheses: maybe I am wrong that nobody is there. Maybe one of my dogs is out there. Maybe a racoon, a stray cat or possum. In my neck of the woods it could be a coyote, fox, woodcock, deer or bear. Maybe it isn't within the garage, but outside.

I don't assume poltergeists or spirits or that my dead grandfather-in-law who loved to tinker with cars is unable to let go of his lifelong passion.

It is, simply, Occam's razor.

Cheers,

voidx

12th August 2003, 11:59 AM

Thanz

12th August 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

At this point, I would call the analysis "suggestive".
"Suggestive" at best.

As I said, it is "suggestive". Moreover, it should be pursued further with forenames gleaned from U.S birth records (assuming a U.S. JE performance).
Don't you think forenames gleaned from U.S. death records would be far more relevant?

Not true. Depending on the analysis being done and the desired significance level, n=78 can be powerful in the statistical sense.
Maybe for some purposes, but I don't think that n=78 is adequate to tell us anything of real value for these purposes.

CFLarsen

12th August 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
"Suggestive" at best.

You are most welcome to come up with a better suggestion.

Originally posted by Thanz
Don't you think forenames gleaned from U.S. death records would be far more relevant?

Sure, if we can get them. Do you have them? No? Then perhaps we should work with what we got.

Originally posted by Thanz
Maybe for some purposes, but I don't think that n=78 is adequate to tell us anything of real value for these purposes.

You are most welcome to come up with better data.

renata

12th August 2003, 02:10 PM

Not quite what you need, but this is a list of names and their frequency from 1990 US Census- first and last, male and female.

http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/

As to birth versus death records- I believe when JE throws out a name or an initial, he gets living relatives quite frequently as validation, so death records would not be necessarily the correct place.

CFLarsen

12th August 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by renata
Not quite what you need, but this is a list of names and their frequency from 1990 US Census- first and last, male and female.

http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/

This is the same reference I use. If anyone has earlier as well as more recent data, it would be most welcome.

Thanz

12th August 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are most welcome to come up with a better suggestion.
Suggestion for what? I think you are confused here. I am not saying that the method of comparing JE's guesses to some sort of letter name matrix is inherently bad, I am just saying that the results we have from the data at hand are "suggestive at best" that JE is using common name letters and therefore cold reading.

Sure, if we can get them. Do you have them? No? Then perhaps we should work with what we got.
I don't have birth records either. Do you? No? What do we have? A list of member names from some unknown organization. Hardly representative of the U.S. population, and hardly representative of the dead population either.

Sometimes, we just have to realize that the data we have is inadequate. That has been accepted (in this very thread) with respect to the show "Crossing Over". Due to editing, etc, we can't reliably use CO for this type of work.

So, I disagree that we should "work with what we got", as what we got is not adequate to give us any sort of accurate results.

You are most welcome to come up with better data.
I never thought that I wasn't. I just happen to have neither the time nor the inclination to come up with the better data. I leave that to people like you and your "Skeptical Report". But that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to point out problems in the data and analysis that I see here.

CFLarsen

12th August 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Suggestion for what? I think you are confused here. I am not saying that the method of comparing JE's guesses to some sort of letter name matrix is inherently bad, I am just saying that the results we have from the data at hand are "suggestive at best" that JE is using common name letters and therefore cold reading.

Which is why I encouraged you to provide better data. Could you focus on that?

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't have birth records either. Do you? No? What do we have? A list of member names from some unknown organization. Hardly representative of the U.S. population, and hardly representative of the dead population either.

If you want to call the US Census Bureau an "unknown organization" then fine with me. You got anything better?

Originally posted by Thanz
Sometimes, we just have to realize that the data we have is inadequate. That has been accepted (in this very thread) with respect to the show "Crossing Over". Due to editing, etc, we can't reliably use CO for this type of work.

So, I disagree that we should "work with what we got", as what we got is not adequate to give us any sort of accurate results.

So, what? We step back and leave it, just like that? OMG, it's not "adequate", so let's leave it?? No, we need to work towards an answer.

Originally posted by Thanz
I never thought that I wasn't. I just happen to have neither the time nor the inclination to come up with the better data. I leave that to people like you and your "Skeptical Report". But that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to point out problems in the data and analysis that I see here.

You are quite right about that. However, you would just make a much more convincing case, if you could - just occasionally - bring something worthwhile to the table, instead of merely complaining about the works of others.

As it is, you do absolutely no work at all. You leave that to others, while you sit on the sideline, ready to point out possible flaws.

Thanz

12th August 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you want to call the US Census Bureau an "unknown organization" then fine with me. You got anything better?
I was referring to the source of juninho's numbers.

So, what? We step back and leave it, just like that? OMG, it's not "adequate", so let's leave it?? No, we need to work towards an answer.
I have no problem working towards an answer. I do have a problem with people thinking that results based on horribly flawed data have any meaning at all. Kerberos posted an analysis based on juninho's numbers, and was congratulated mightily for it. I, too, appreciate the work that he (?) did to come up with those numbers. However, to just accept them as meaningful without looking at the underlying data is sloppy. It was that reaction that I was primarily posting about.

You are quite right about that. However, you would just make a much more convincing case, if you could - just occasionally - bring something worthwhile to the table, instead of merely complaining about the works of others.

As it is, you do absolutely no work at all. You leave that to others, while you sit on the sideline, ready to point out possible flaws.
Well, yeah, it's a tough job - but somebody's got to do it. :p

Maybe you could just think of me as "peer review"?

But, you do make a point. If I have the time, I will try to bring more original analysis to the table for YOU to critisize. Fair?

Thanz

12th August 2003, 03:06 PM

Allright, I have actually found a fairly good source of names for this kind of analysis.

if you go here (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/index.html) , you can find out the top 1000 names for the years 1990 to the present. You can also get the top 1000 names for each decade from from the 1900's through to 1990's. The source of the data is social secuity applications in the United States.

I don't have a lot of time to go through and count letters, however. Maybe if the task were broken down and spread across a number of posters it would be easier.

renata

12th August 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Allright, I have actually found a fairly good source of names for this kind of analysis.

if you go here (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/index.html) , you can find out the top 1000 names for the years 1990 to the present. You can also get the top 1000 names for each decade from from the 1900's through to 1990's. The source of the data is social secuity applications in the United States.

I don't have a lot of time to go through and count letters, however. Maybe if the task were broken down and spread across a number of posters it would be easier.

Good source! It is not that difficult, one can simply copy data into Excel and do a sort and a count. For example for 1900 names, there are 98 male A names, 52 B names, 71 C names, etc However, before that is done, exactly what do we want to count? Before we do the work, let's define it :)

Thanz

12th August 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by renata

Good source! It is not that difficult, one can simply copy data into Excel and do a sort and a count. For example for 1900 names, there are 98 male A names, 52 B names, 71 C names, etc However, before that is done, exactly what do we want to count? Before we do the work, let's define it :)
Well, I think that a straight count is not the way you need to go - it needs to be weighted. For example, three of the top 5 men's names begin with "J".

So, I think that the number of people for each letter needs to be counted, and then we will know the actual distribution of letters across the sample.

renata

12th August 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, I think that a straight count is not the way you need to go - it needs to be weighted. For example, three of the top 5 men's names begin with "J".

So, I think that the number of people for each letter needs to be counted, and then we will know the actual distribution of letters across the sample.

That is also pretty straighforward ( I love Excel)

So fo 1900 names,
There are 97 A names, for total of 31,584 names
51 B names for 7,734 names
71 C names, for 35,915 names
etc

Once the count is completed, what then?

(BTW I was one off on A & B names in prior post- my mistake)

neofight

12th August 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Neo, I did not just say "Don't listen to neofight about the editing". Did you only read the first line of my post??? I stated my opinion, and I explained why I disagreed with you.

LOL, 'g8R! Are you serious? Regardless of what you may have said afterwards, that does not alter the fact that you told
Kerberos quite directly NOT to listen to me about the editing!!! :rolleyes:

In other words, I challenged your opinion, and explained why I disagree with you over the editing... [/quote}

Had that been all you did, Instig8R, I would not have had a problem with it.

[quote]Just because someone disagrees with you is not justification for an ad hom... and making up accusations of hatreds and biases about other posters IS an ad hom. Are you trying to deflect attention from the Malibu Shrimp snafu? :D

As I said, it was not your disagreeing with me that I took exception to, it was your taking it upon yourself to instruct Kerberos to disregard my post, as though your opinion was worth considering, but mine was to be dismissed. That's all.

I was not attempting to deflect attention from anything, since I've often stated that I disagree with the significance you attach to those types of descrepencies that involve interpretation of symbols. We've gone over that many times. I know we disagree, and I accept that, no problem.

And I did not make up accusations of hatreds and biases about you. If you think *hate* is too strong a word to use, and perhaps you're right, it might be, then substitute *strong dislike* and/or *contempt*, and perhaps that would be more accurate.

With regard to the bias that I think you demonstrate against JE, there we will have to agree to disagree I think, because imo, your bias is not exactly understated. Come on now! I admit to my bias, 'g8R! Please don't deny yours. ;) .....neo

Thanz

12th August 2003, 03:42 PM

Renata - I am impressed by your excell skills. I would say that they were excel-lent, but that would be a heinous pun, so I won't.

This is the way I see it. If we combine the results from each decade, and then express each letter as a percentage of the total, we should have a decent approximation of the proportion of each letter for those born in the US in the last 100 years, which I think covers most (if not all) of the people that JE would be referencing. Then, for example, we can see if "F" names make up 7.8% of the total, how that relate to the number of times JE guess an "F" name.

The tougher part is getting enough JE guesses to make the comparison worthwhile.

Any other thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

neofight

12th August 2003, 03:48 PM

[i]Have I seen someone who (a) I believe is not a medium and (b) who appears to do what JE does? Yes! The names Browne... [/B]

Well, Loki, like I said, I don't remember ever seeing Sylvia Browne actually do a mediumship reading, so I don't feel like I can compare her to JE.

In general, I don't remember too many people saying positive things about her, so I don't know how many of them would agree with you that she and JE have similar abilities.....neo

BillHoyt

12th August 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
"Suggestive" at best.
No, "suggestive" at least, not best. When scientists say "suggestive" they mean it lends support to an hypothesis. It is often used as an understatement.

Don't you think forenames gleaned from U.S. death records would be far more relevant?
JE's initials and names refer to people both living and dead. Death records would not be more relevant.

Maybe for some purposes, but I don't think that n=78 is adequate to tell us anything of real value for these purposes.
How about you get more specific, Thanz? Why is it inadequate here?

Cheers,

BillHoyt

12th August 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, I think that a straight count is not the way you need to go - it needs to be weighted. For example, three of the top 5 men's names begin with "J".

So, I think that the number of people for each letter needs to be counted, and then we will know the actual distribution of letters across the sample.

You mean "normalized". For example, tally all the J names, divide by the total population, to obtain the control group's frequency.

Cheers,

neofight

12th August 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R
Neo, it is all opinion here, and I have never claimed otherwise. I should not have to preface every single sentence with "IMO", nor should I be bound by rules that you yourself do not live by.

Agreed. Just don't presume that your opinion trumps my opinion, and let other posters decide for themselves whether or not they want to ignore what I say. :)

Neo, this has come up a number of times. Whenever I criticize JE, I wind up being the target of an ad hom. You still seem to think it is justifiable to attack whoever criticizes JE. If we adhere to your rules, JE cannot be discussed, because anyone who utters a negative comment is attacked for doing so. This is a surefire way to stifle meaningful discussion.

Well, since we are only speculating about JE, I would have thought that it would be possible to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of his claims to mediumship, without anyone constantly engaging in character assassination, but it seems I was mistaken. :confused:

It would be very helpful if you would supply me examples of the "nasty hateful rhetoric that I have used in discussing him". That is a very serious allegation on your part. I deny that I have ever engaged in any such behavior.

[b][quote]I do not use malicious language. Your allegation is downright defamatory. I would suggest that you either back-up your claim with evidence of the offensive rhetoric that you charge me with, or withdraw the claim.

Several times at TVTalk, I criticized JE and explained why I thought he was a fraud. However, instead of responding to my criticisms, you paraphrased my criticisms and referred to JE as "lowlife", etc., even though I did not engage in name-calling. Perhaps that is why you believe I was the author of ugly comments that YOU wrote about JE? ...Sort of like a poster's false memory syndrome.

If you look through the threads, I think you will see what I mean.

Well, if they were all in one thread where I could simply post the link, it would be easy, but they're not, Instig8R. Your derogatory comments are disbursed throughout a gazillion threads.

Friendship or not, these are impersonal debates on forums ... and detachment is the only way to debate an issue. The emotional state of a poster should not be presumed, because it is simply not relevant....

You're right, and I do try my best to keep the debates impersonal, but once in a while I drop the ball, and I let some remark of yours get to me, like the one you just made. I do admire your ability to completely detach yourself when you debate. You do an admirable job of that, for sure. ;)

Now, go find those offensive quotes of mine... I'm dying to read them! :)

A daunting task. I only searched through about two or three threads, but it took a lot more time than I'd like to devote to this task. I'll post what I did find, and hope that suffices. It's going to have to, because I'm just not doing this. It's really not all that important, and I'm only doing it because you wanted me to.

Post # 71 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 October 29th, 2002 08:15 PM

It seems to me that JE will say whatever suits his own selfish purposes at any given time.

As a believer, I understand that you are offended by what you perceive as undue criticism of JE, as someone you admire. As a disbeliever, I expect you to understand that I am offended by undue praise of JE, as someone I disdain.

Post # 165 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 November 26th, 2002 11:09 PM

He deflects the criticism away from himself, sometimes by undermining the intelligence of his fans, and more often by hiding behind widows and other bereaved individuals.

Post # 163 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 November 26th, 2002 09:47 PM

Hence, JE claims not to be concerned about critics/skeptics. The truth is that he is concerned about criticism, but is too cowardly to admit it. Therefore, he shifts the onus onto his fans, putting the insult and the injury on them. He then relies upon his fans to silence the critics. This is yet another reason why I consider him to be a manipulative s.o.b.

You want more than that, Instig8R, you'll have to find them yourself. You know they're out there. ;) As for me, I know for damned sure that I didn't imagine all the mean and defamatory posts that you made about JE, so if nothing else, I'm sure of what I said concerning your anti-JE bias........neo

neofight

12th August 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by renata
Of course, above is a joke. But how you can pick an edited version of a show versus an unedited series of readings is unfathomable- and- in my mind against common sense.

Exactly, renata, and I'm so pleased to see that you understand this concept. You now understand precisely how John Hockenberry picked and chose exactly what he would air on his "Dateline" show so that he would make John Edward appear to have purposely cheated on national television. Thanks! You're a peach! :D ......neo

neofight

12th August 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R

P.S. I'd also like to know the identities of the other posters that you claim have commented on my "sometimes malicious language". Just who are these nameless posters?

As though knowing me, you really believe that I would state publicly what someone has told me privately. :rolleyes:

There were some unjustified personal attacks against me by atmytv and by sgrenard over at TVTalk. In response, other posters (like RC and Celter, for example) defended me because the attacks were extremely inappropriate and unjustified. (I believe atmytv apologized and we made up.)

Yes. Unjustified in your opinion, and as you said, in RC's and Celter's. Completely justified in others, including my own. True, atmytv is a gentleman, and he did apologize, but that does not mean that he felt he was mistaken, it just means that he was not about to make a big deal out of it. He's a nice man. This was what he initially said to you......followed by my response.......and then followed by his apology.

Post # 117 <atmytv> 64.133.202.146 November 12th, 2002 12:16 PM

I used to enjoy reading your posts. Even though they presented the other side, they were not cynical and distasteful the way they are now. You don't think you have changed, but you have. And, as I have acknowledged, I guess I have too, having more anger at the way John is treated and talked about here. It is one thing to have a discussion about whether such a thing as getting information off the internet is possible and the difficulties or ease of doing it and whether it explains all of his "hits". It is entirely different to state that John is a scum that clearly does it this way. Or to imply that anyone who does not recognize that is an idiot.

Post # 130 <neofight> 64.12.96.202 November 12th, 2002 10:20 PM

.....As far as atmytv's strong reaction to your sometimes rather caustic posts about JE, I do understand his upset. As you already know, I've experienced similar reactions to some of the things you have said about him, mainly because in my heart, I feel that he is a good person and that the attacks upon him are unwarranted. We who admire him and appreciate the work he is doing, do sometimes get offended at the level of disdain with which you and others regard him.

I know you don't get it when believers react this way, since you feel that you are directing your remarks at JE, and not at us, but I guess we just find it very unfair, and kind of like "dishonoring the living" as you put it. After all, if JE turns out to be the real deal, then your comments really will be looked upon as quite harsh and totally without merit.

And atmytv, Instig8R really does like to needle. ;) Seriously, after reading some of her posts, I feel a real need to see her in person or talk to her on the phone, so that I can remind myself what a nice person she really is, and why we've been friends for so long.

I think her evil alter-ego, Instig8R, is the one to blame for all this nasty stuff. ;) My friend does not even seem to be aware that she is coming off as nasty, as you can see from reading her response to you. She just enjoys the fracus. Try not to take her disparaging remarks to heart.
; ^ ) .....neo

(I should only take my own wise advise here, lol)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post # 136 <atmytv> 64.133.202.146 November 14th, 2002 07:53 AM

Instig8r. I apologize to you if anything I posted is taken as trying to diminish you in any way. That is not the intent. And I understand that you post your feelings about John and not about other posters.

My reaction to your posts comes from two sources for me, I believe. My memory might be faulty, but my impression was that when you and Dogwood first started posting, you both were clear that you had come away from seminars with disappointment about what you saw and serious questions about John. But your posts were not of the "John is scum" nature that they have been recently. So when I read your posts originally I never felt that I had to prepare myself for the nastiness toward John that was coming. So for me, it feels like you have become a cynic, rather than a skeptic. You are, of course, entitled to be whatever you like and to post whatever you want. As RC points out, he does not see it the same way, so I will accept the misperception as mine, and adjust to what in my mind is a new reality.

The second thing that has happened is, as Neo put it, that I am reacting to the incredible nastiness and disdain that has been directed towards John recently. It is very difficult to hear all of that stuff on a continual basis directed towards someone who you feel is real and doing a valuable service. In addition, the manner of the statements make it very difficult not to take it personally when the clear implication is that anyone who believes in this is a freaking dumbass bewildered gullible idiot. When you then add Cantata on top of that mix, it clearly got to me.

While you treat fellow posters with respect, perhaps you do not see how what you are saying about John can be interpreted as nasty and personal for those of us who just have a different viewpoint than yours. Now that I have vented my frustrations of the last several months, I will attempt to return to my thoughtful, rational, kinder self. Again accept my apologies if you felt unjustly attacked.

So I don't know about you, Instig8R, but I honored your request, and now I would just like to move on and start fresh, if that's all right with you.......neo

neofight

12th August 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

Yes, especially when he throws "suicide" in there.

Hi, Leroy! I just would like to clarify something here. He does not generalize here and just throw in "suicide", but only a drug overdose, accidental or otherwise, that would indicate a lot of "toxins" in the blood.

Anything like that would come under this symbol, along with the other problems that he mentions that could be detected in the blood. :) ......neo

neofight

12th August 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Perhaps, in time, you will actually contribute with something valuable to the discussions here, in a skeptical sense. Your whole output here seems to consist of nothing else but pointing out what you don't like about other posters, tell them how they should behave, and what they should think and say. You seem to have chosen the position as the Miss Manners of this board.

LOL Claus. It's the right description, but it fits you, and not Leroy. How ironic is that? :roll:

Leroy has proven himself to be an objective as well as fair skeptic, Claus. You could stand to take a lesson! :rolleyes: ....neo

AlienX

12th August 2003, 05:35 PM

At last some progress and really Neo I thank you as I was beginning to think you were so closed minded and irrational as to not see such a basic principal of only looking at selective readings in isolation as being flawed.

Right so I assume the best thing to do is to look at a series of unedited readings not selected at all due to how good or how bad they are.. seems reasonable and you do say so yourself ;-)

Yet I suspect a few rolleyes coming on here as you point out that for whatever reason that looking at the multiple readings as a whole is somehow flawed..??

So far the only thread which does this is Renatas, it's irrelevent what the scoring and opinions are - we have multiple readings accurately transcripted - it's the best we have.

I'm glad you finally now realise and say so yourself just as holding up specific bad readings is just as bad as pointing the specific good readings.

Now perhaps you could explain this basic principal to JE and give us access to unedited tapings of crossing over as i'm sure due to your comments you agree that this edited show is missrepresenting what actually happens.

Thats just great so I suppose we will see an end to threads which contain a single specific hit reading... at last I agree with you 100%...... progress ;-)

AlienX

neofight

12th August 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by AlienX
At last some progress and really Neo I thank you as I was beginning to think you were so closed minded and irrational as to not see such a basic principal of only looking at selective readings in isolation as being flawed.

Don't mention it, AlienX. ;)

Right so I assume the best thing to do is to look at a series of unedited readings not selected at all due to how good or how bad they are.. seems reasonable and you do say so yourself ;-)

Yet I suspect a few rolleyes coming on here as you point out that for whatever reason that looking at the multiple readings as a whole is somehow flawed..??

So far the only thread which does this is Renatas, it's irrelevent what the scoring and opinions are - we have multiple readings accurately transcripted - it's the best we have.

LOL, no, I'll spare you the rolleyes, AlienX. I realize that they are the only unedited readings that we have, but the reason that I don't believe it's fair to use those readings is because no matter what some might say, those of us who are familiar with JE's readings, from watching the show, and/or from going to seminars, know for a fact that these short little phone readings are not representative of a full JE reading. They're just not.

An average JE reading goes on for quite a while. These mini-readings are timed in mere seconds. They can't measure up to the usual length reading. It's impossible, and because of that fact, and because there is no immediate follow-up where the sitter can verify some of the things that JE said that flew by too fast for them to react to initially, these readings are less than ideal to work with. Far less than ideal......neo

edited to chance the word "edited" to "unedited"

BillHoyt

12th August 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by neofight
As though knowing me, you really believe that I would state publicly what someone has told me privately. :rolleyes:
What duplicity! You use private messages to make a claim and then hide behind their private nature to refuse to back up that claim.

Stop wasting our time and JREF bandwith!

BillHoyt

12th August 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by neofight
LOL, no, I'll spare you the rolleyes, AlienX. I realize that they are the only edited readings that we have, but the reason that I don't believe it's fair to use those readings is because no matter what some might say, those of us who are familiar with JE's readings, from watching the show, and/or from going to seminars, know for a fact that these short little phone readings are not representative of a full JE reading. They're just not.

More duplicity! Unedited readings aren't representative because you say so. No other evidence. Somehow we are to believe the edited TV shows are more representative. What a lovely veil this broadbrush makes. We will never know the truth of JE with your system, will we? We can only trust readings edited by JE and his producers. Wow.

neofight

12th August 2003, 06:46 PM

BillHoyt, you are a most unpleasant person. :p ......neo

neofight

12th August 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

More duplicity! Unedited readings aren't representative because you say so. No other evidence. Somehow we are to believe the edited TV shows are more representative. What a lovely veil this broadbrush makes. We will never know the truth of JE with your system, will we? We can only trust readings edited by JE and his producers. Wow.

The readings that are allowed to go on until they stop are the more representative readings, Hoyt, regardless of whether they are edited or not, as in the gallery, OR at a seminar.

Why don't you make the attempt to go to one of JE's seminars so you can judge for yourself what a real unedited full-length JE reading looks like, instead of bitching and moaning about the issue?

We can take up a collection if you don't want to put money in JE's pocket. I'll even chip in, if my share doesn't come to more than $10. :rolleyes: .......neo

Loki

12th August 2003, 06:58 PM

neofight,

those of us who are familiar with JE's readings, from watching the show, and/or from going to seminars, know for a fact that these short little phone readings are not representative of a full JE reading. They're just not.
...
these readings are less than ideal to work with. Far less than ideal
I understand why *you* think this - but why doesn't JE say anything like this? Why does he do "far from ideal" and "not representative" readings? Why doesn't he preface these readings by saying something like "I'd just like to say before we start that these readings will be far from ideal, because of the restricted time/format.". You say he can't perform well, and these readings shouldn't be seen as "representative". I haven't heard him say that at all. You know more about this than he does?

neofight

12th August 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Loki
neofight,

I understand why *you* think this - but why doesn't JE say anything like this? Why does he do "far from ideal" and "not representative" readings? Why doesn't he preface these readings by saying something like "I'd just like to say before we start that these readings will be far from ideal, because of the restricted time/format.". You say he can't perform well, and these readings shouldn't be seen as "representative". I haven't heard him say that at all. You know more about this than he does?

Loki, I'm certain if he was asked the question, he would have to agree that having the people he is reading right there in front of him has to be less confusing to him than having ten people holding on phone lines.

I mean, it's common sense. At least when they are in front of him physically, he feels a "pull" as to whom he is supposed to be with that leads hiim to the right area. I doubt that happens on the phone......neo

SteveGrenard

12th August 2003, 07:09 PM

Each call is about 1 minute or less. The intent of LKL is to have him take as many of these 1-minute calls as possible. JE doesn't say 1-minute is not enough time and these calls a bunch of crap because King won't let him say it although I have sensed his discomfort in this regard. He's on LKL for international exposure. His promoters got him on to sell books or whatever and have his image sent out worldwide. LKL shows at 2 or 3 AM in the UK and a lot of people stay up to watch him although I don't know why.

Whoever, said JE has control over the calls is mistaken. King has a switch. When the call goes over, even if the caller or JE is not finished., he (King himself) cuts them off. Next caller. Cut. Next caller. Cut. Next caller. Cut.

In short, this call in stuff on LKL is a bunch of crap. It can't be used to rate anything for or against JE. And no TV performance of any kind can be the scientific basis for determining a medium's validity which is why the bandwith wasted on this is aburd.

neofight

12th August 2003, 07:12 PM

Loki, I forgot to respond to the rest of your question. You're asking why he doesn't give a disclaimer of sorts, before he begins these phone readings?

I don't know why, but I suppose it's possible that he doesn't want to appear like he is making excuses for poor performance even before he begins. As it is I've heard him criticized by some skeptics for trying to "lower expectations" when he warns a sitter that the person they most want to hear from might not come through. (although most of the time, they do)

And I'm not sure that he would do these tv guest appearances at all, except that perhaps it is required of him contractually every time his publisher releases a new book.......neo

KelvinG

12th August 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
KG: So, can we all agree, once and for all, that JE's show proves nothing.

Exactly. This is absolutely correct but there is negative bias from the so-called skeptic side also which keeps bringing up JE's performance on television as evidence of his cold reading, hot reading or guessing (warm reading). It is meaningless from both sides of the aisle.

So, if we can't trust JE's readings on LKL, or his readings on CO, then why is there even discussion about him.
Until some legitimate scientific testing is done, we are left with no answers.
And because of that, is it not more logical to conclude that JE's technique is nothing more than cold reading?
That doesn't mean that the possibility of him being a medium can be discounted entirely, but it does mean a little common sense makes the medium scenario incredibly far fetched.

If we can only standby and say "JE might be a medium or he might not be a medium, we just don't know for sure", then the believers lose.
Why do they lose? Because the burden of proof is on them. It's not up to the skeptics to prove JE is not a medium (although they certainly seem to propose the vastly superior arguments), it's up to JE to prove he is a medium.

Until he does, I have to assume, through common sense and reason, that he is not a medium, but just a talented cold reader.

If anyone thinks otherwise, prove me wrong. Of course, you can't. And don't ask me to prove that he truly isn't a medium. The burden is not on me. Why? Because the last time I checked the scientific community has not embraced Edward as the amazing phenomenon that he claims to be. Science textbooks have not been rewritten to include his powers which would defy known laws of science.
Until that happens, JE is simply a novelty act, a gimmick if you will.

Sorry, but as things currently stand John Edward is going to be remembered as an entertainer in the same category as David Copperfield. (except not nearly as famous or talented as Copperfield).
Kind of sad for someone who supposedly talks to the dead!!

renata

12th August 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Exactly, renata, and I'm so pleased to see that you understand this concept. You now understand precisely how John Hockenberry picked and chose exactly what he would air on his "Dateline" show so that he would make John Edward appear to have purposely cheated on national television. Thanks! You're a peach! :D ......neo

I do of course understand it-I brought the issue up and have been doing so for a while. :i: You, however, appear to take my point about unreliability of the evidence you rely on and attempt to divert the topic elsewhere.
You continue to use the edited CO and your unreliable memory of the seminar readings (later edited, as proven by Instigater) as evidence of his abilities. You continue to discard LKL readings as useless, snippets, unacceptable. However, when Clancie quoted the Timothy reading from LKL, probably the best of all the readings he did there http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23120 you did not object that it was a snippet! You said
Good choice, Clancie! And this sitter is extremely tight-lipped!

So your objections are only when totality of evidence is presented and examined- you do not mind a single decent reading taken out of context of many abysmal ones. :bs:

That smacks of intellectual dishonesty and self deception, Neo.

Edited to test out the new irony and bs meters :)

renata

12th August 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Renata - I am impressed by your excell skills. I would say that they were excel-lent, but that would be a heinous pun, so I won't.

This is the way I see it. If we combine the results from each decade, and then express each letter as a percentage of the total, we should have a decent approximation of the proportion of each letter for those born in the US in the last 100 years, which I think covers most (if not all) of the people that JE would be referencing. Then, for example, we can see if "F" names make up 7.8% of the total, how that relate to the number of times JE guess an "F" name.

The tougher part is getting enough JE guesses to make the comparison worthwhile.

Any other thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

*groan* :) I hoped you would resist! Or at least make a better pun! ;)

I can add all the names up- but if we want to know how many types of names, it will be more difficult, because there would be no exact overlap necessarily between 1900 and 1970, and I don't feel like calculating manually. But perhaps only the numbers of names in total for those years are relevant. In that case, I can do the math relatively easily- but I do not want to do it unless someone somewhere will use it for analysis! :)

And whereas we have this name data, it will be difficult to gather the untainted transcripts for analysis.

SteveGrenard

12th August 2003, 07:51 PM

KG: So, if we can't trust JE's readings on LKL, or his readings on CO, then why is there even discussion about him.
Until some legitimate scientific testing is done, we are left with no answers.

Reply: I AGREE.

KG: And because of that, is it not more logical to conclude that JE's technique is nothing more than cold reading?

Reply: No, because if you a true skeptic who places your faith in the scientific method you cannot make any conclusions on him until he has b een scientifically debunked or validated.

KG: That doesn't mean that the possibility of him being a medium can be discounted entirely, but it does mean a little common sense makes the medium scenario incredibly far fetched.

Reply: It doesn't mean anything actually. And "far fetched" is hyperbole and not a scientific conclusion.

KG: If we can only standby and say "JE might be a medium or he might not be a medium, we just don't know for sure", then the believers lose.

Reply: There can be no winners or losers. This is not a contest or a race. With scientific evidence there is no winners and no losers.
The truth wins. Nothing else really matters.

I agree. He might or he might not. But do we know? NO.

KG: Why do they lose? Because the burden of proof is on them. It's not up to the skeptics to prove JE is not a medium (although they certainly seem to propose the vastly superior arguments), it's up to JE to prove he is a medium.

Reply: JE doesn't seem to care what you or I think and doesn't consider it up to him to prove anything. However other mediums are interested in research and are participating in research and, over the years past, have done so as well. There are three serious books that discuss these: Braude: Immortal Remains; Gauld: Mediumship-A Century of Investigations and the original one that started it all, by FWH Myer's. Neither believers or non-believers have any statutary burden placed on them. Individuals can examine the evidence and decide for themselves.

KG: Until he does, I have to assume, through common sense and reason, that he is not a medium, but just a talented cold reader.

Reply: Assumptions are not scientific and the word doesn't appear in the scientific method.

KG: If anyone thinks otherwise, prove me wrong. Of course, you can't. And don't ask me to prove that he truly isn't a medium. The burden is not on me. Why? Because the last time I checked the scientific community has not embraced Edward as the amazing phenomenon that he claims to be. Science textbooks have not been rewritten to include his powers which would defy known laws of science.

Reply: You are incorrect. Edward has neither been asked nor has he denied any requests to be tested further by a scientific
researcher and institution. There is nothing amazing about JE and I would ask you to show me where he claims he is amazing. Randi claims he is amazing "The Amazing Randi." I have never seen JE do that. There are plenty of people who claim to do what JE does and some of them claim to do it a lot better than he does. See the above references. JE is not mentioned in any of them.

KG: Until that happens, JE is simply a novelty act, a gimmick if you will.

Reply: I am not sure what a gimmick or novelty act is in this context but if this is how you want to characterize his performance you are certainly entitled to that opinion. We are all critics.

Loki

12th August 2003, 08:11 PM

neofight,

...I'm certain if he was asked the question, he would have to agree that having the people he is reading right there in front of him has to be less confusing to him than having ten people holding on phone lines.

I mean, it's common sense...
But what has commonsense got to do with this? If commonsense was applicable, then surely JE would be able to get letters (even words) from the spirits - they are, after all, the simplest and most common 'symbols' within the 'frame of referecen' of JE, the spirit, and the sitter. But JE tells us "it doesn't work like that", so obviously "commonsense" is not a useful tool in examining JE's process. If you can't use commonsense, and JE has not offered any complaint or 'disclaimer' about LKL style readings, then on what basis do you conclude they are "not representative"?? Isn't it true that your main reason for feeling this readings are "not representative" is because they generate far fewer hits??

We both start from "LKL readings have far fewer hits".

You conclude that "LKL readings are 'process unfriendly'".

I can't see how you reach that conclusion, without just assuming it. 'Commonsense' can't get you there (with any degree of reliability), and JE doesn't tell you this. So how?

Actually, I think you do have one point that we could agree on that makes LKL readings less that ideal....
..and because there is no immediate follow-up where the sitter can verify some of the things that JE said that flew by too fast for them to react to initially,...
Given the speed of the reading, the sitter has to respond instantly with hit/miss. This increases the chances for error, where the sitter might fail to find a hit, or incorrectly validate information that doesn't actually fit. The shorter the reading, the more likely these sorts of errors will occur. Of course, it's possible that these errors might work either way, so it's hard to conclude that this "lack of considered validation" by the sitter is responsible for the poorer reading.

KelvinG

12th August 2003, 08:20 PM

SG: No, because if you a true skeptic who places your faith in the scientific method you cannot make any conclusions on him until he has b een scientifically debunked or validated.

OK, fair enough. Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions. So, I can assume that you are absolutely in the middle on JE. You have no more belief one way or the other whether JE is real or not?

SG: It doesn't mean anything actually. And "far fetched" is hyperbole and not a scientific conclusion.

Yes, but it sounds cool.:D But fair enough again, the word is one I use of my own free will, perhaps incorrectly.

SG: There can be no winners or losers. This is not a contest or a race. With scientific evidence there is no winners and no losers.

Wow, considering how heated debates get on this forum and the amount of name calling that occurs I concluded otherwise.

SG: JE doesn't seem to care what you or I think and doesn't consider it up to him to prove anything. However other mediums are interested in research and are participating in research and, over the years past, have done so as well. There are three serious books that discuss these: Braude: Immortal Remains; Gauld: Mediumship-A Century of Investigations and the original one that started it all, by FWH Myer's. Neither believers or non-believers have any statutary burden placed on them. Individuals can examine the evidence and decide for themselves.

Like I said in my earlier post, I will wait until mainstream science embraces these studies and declares that paranormal phenomenon actually do exist. As a non-scientist and somehow who only follows science casually, I have to defer to the opinions of experts. If I read the data from the above mentioned studies, I probably wouldn't be able to interpret it. I will rely on the majority opinion in the scientific community. And so far, that doesn't include paranormal phenomenon.

SG: JE doesn't seem to care what you or I think and doesn't consider it up to him to prove anything.

Most con men won't really care what their critics think. And yes, I called him a con man. I realize it might be unscientific of me, but I'm just going by a hunch on this one. Hey, who knows, maybe this hunch is a paranormal experience! We'll never really know without scientific testing.;)

SG: You are incorrect. Edward has neither been asked nor has he denied any requests to be tested further by a scientific

I think this goes to show exactly how seriously his so-called "abilities" are taken. Someone who can talk to the dead and the scientific community isn't interested!! Mind boggling!!

SG:There is nothing amazing about JE and I would ask you to show me where he claims he is amazing.

Yes, I agree, there is nothing particularly amazing about cold reading. However, if you think he might actually be talking to the dead, then holy sh*t, I do think that is amazing. I think that is beyond amazing.
And I never said that Edward claimed he was amazing.

SG: I am not sure what a gimmick or novelty act is in this context but if this is how you want to characterize his performance you are certainly entitled to that opinion. We are all critics.

Fair enough again. I do characterize him this way. This simply falls into the "call em as I see em category."
Granted, it ain't scientific, but I'm not always scientific either.

Thanks Steve.

Loki

12th August 2003, 08:35 PM

SteveGrenard,

(KelvinG wrote) : And because of that, is it not more logical to conclude that JE's technique is nothing more than cold reading?

(SteveGrenard wrote) : No, because if you a true skeptic who places your faith in the scientific method you cannot make any conclusions on him until he has b een scientifically debunked or validated.
Nonsense! An "open mind" doesn't not mean the same thing as "cannot make a conclusion". It's *possible* that dogs and cats are engaged in a war to conquer the Earth, and are just using humans as resource gatherers. There is no contradiction in saying "I am skeptical of this" and "I believe it to be false". Skeptical means "prepared to base my conclusions on the available evidence".

What is the available evidence in favor of JE? As you agree, none.

What is the available evidence against JE? At the very minimum, the existing body of knowledge regarding physics, and the proven track record of humans to lie and cheat.

Is this *conclusive* evidence against JE? I think so! He offers absolutely nothing in support of his claim, and needs to overturn the scientific basis of modern knowledge to establish this claim. He doesn't have to be scientifically debunked in order for me to say "fake" - science already says he can't do what he claims. He does have to be scientifically validated for me to say "he's genuine".

. However other mediums are interested in research and are participating in research and, over the years past, have done so as well.
Slight change of tack here (by me) - why don't mediums do their own research? You seem to think that JE (or anyone else) needs to be involved in institutional research? Sure, that's wereh it has to end up - but why are "beleiver" groups (say, you, your wife, and your NY trance medium) interested in generating some data to present to the public? Why doesn't this *ever* happen :

Steve : "Gee Trance Medium, you're 100% accurate! I'd like to propose a few tests, to gather some data that will change the human race!"
TranceMedium : "Sure! Lets go for it - what do you suggest?"
Steve : "Well, there are a few simple things we can do - how about next week I arrange a simple blind test of a few friends of mine - you can read them multiple time from behind a curtain, and see if you can get the same readings?"
TranceMedium : "Yes, that sounds interesting - I'd like to see how far my powers extend. Let's do it!"

Now, *if* that ever happened it would prove nothing of course. Replication is the key. But why doesn't the "medium industry" *ever* produce this sort of data? JE probably has enough wealth to establish the "John Edward Psychic Research Institute" if he felt the desire. Why this total lack of interest in any self-organised structured testing at all? Doesn't it say something?

SteveGrenard

12th August 2003, 08:35 PM

KG: OK, fair enough. Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions. So, I can assume that you are absolutely in the middle on JE. You have no more belief one way or the other whether JE is real or not?

Reply: Yes this correct. Wihout the requsiite testing, where JE as an individual is concerned, a true skeptic can never be certain. All we have to date on this personage is the Univ of Az testing which has been critricized and deemed flawed in someway by cynics and skeptical reviewers. Thus where JE is concerned more testing would be required since the Az testing did not find him to be a fake but it did not satisfy the cynics and skeptics that he was real either. Based on the skeptical critiques and the failure to get a straight answer as to what would be acceptable and 10 different opinions for a protocol including some which are pretty ridiculous (such as Randi's Sylvia Browne design) it may be impossible to get any cynic/skeptic's nod on any protocol in advance that would satisfy such a person. At
that point researchers just have to go forward anyway and do so with the best design and advice they can muster.

KG: Wow, considering how heated debates get on this forum and the amount of name calling that occurs I concluded otherwise.

Reply: There are cynics here who are rhetorical skeptics; others who try to counter honest debate and denigrate those with whom they do not agree by ad hominem attacks. If you have nothing left to say try "liar" is one frequent technique. It is designed to hurt the credibility of ones opponents. It is now so commonly used by certain parties it is hardly worth mentioning anymore and has lost all of its true meaning. Such folks get what they give and should expect no less. There is no turning the other cheek here when attacked in this way.

SteveGrenard

12th August 2003, 08:56 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------L:Nonsense! An "open mind" doesn't not mean the same thing as "cannot make a conclusion". It's *possible* that dogs and cats are engaged in a war to conquer the Earth, and are just using humans as resource gatherers. There is no contradiction in saying "I am skeptical of this" and "I believe it to be false". Skeptical means "prepared to base my conclusions on the available evidence".

Reply: You can make all the "isn't it possible arguments" in the world, it still is not scientific. I never used the term open mind and unless JE is scientifically debunked or discredited or validated, I can't be certain about him.

L: What is the available evidence in favor of JE? As you agree, none.

Reply: We are NOT talking about available evidence. We are talking about scientifically obtained evidence under controlled conditions. The available evidence is crapola. Any pro or con evidence you get off the television or from uncontrolled public performances or 60 second telephone readings on LKL is worthless. I agree: none for, and none against.

L: What is the available evidence against JE? At the very minimum, the existing body of knowledge regarding physics, and the proven track record of humans to lie and cheat.

Reply: Ah, the liar and cheat argument. Isn't it possible? I dont buy the isn't it possible argument no more than I buy the "isn't it impossible" either. These are meaningless terms. With respect to the physics evidence, there is enough we don't know to make a similar conclusion ....and in the world of quantum physics, the isn't possible or its not impossible arguments run rampant on a daily basis and are used by physicists to advance their understanding of such possibilities. But I still don't buy them.

L: Is this *conclusive* evidence against JE? I think so!

Reply: I think not. It neither supports or excorciates him.

L: He offers absolutely nothing in support of his claim, and needs to overturn the scientific basis of modern knowledge to establish this claim. He doesn't have to be scientifically debunked in order for me to say "fake" - science already says he can't do what he claims. He does have to be scientifically validated for me to say "he's genuine".

Reply: After you have read Braude, Myers and Gauld and many of the supporting references in there , come back and tell me that "science" whoever he is or whatever that is as an entity,
says he can't do what he claims. The science in these studies say otherwise. More recent studies by Robinson and Roy in the UK, the work done by Honorton, Bem, Parker et al on telepathy, all this adds up to the conclusion that science says nothing of the kind that you claim it says. This doesn't mean JE is real but you can't label him as a fake based on this argument. In the face of other evidence, I couldn't care less about JE or his claim but I still require him to be validated or discredited under controlled conditions by (a) legitimate scientific researcher(s) on an academic institutional evel.

I can understand why you are now turning away from the scientific method when it is being invoked against your worldview. It is fascinating how cynics use that argument when it suits them and disdain it when it doesn't. It is too funny.

L: Slight change of tack here (by me) - why don't mediums do their own research? You seem to think that JE (or anyone else) needs to be involved in institutional research? Sure, that's wereh it has to end up - but why are "beleiver" groups (say, you, your wife, and your NY trance medium) interested in generating some data to present to the public? Why doesn't this *ever* happen :

Reply: I think there would be immediate outcries from people such as yourself citing a conflict of interest if JE funded his own research. I have not asked the NY trance or the British trance if they are interested and dont intend to. I have no personal contact w/them and my wife and I saw them anonymously and professionally. We were not doing research on them. The British medium is already one of many who works with the SPR (I was advised of this afterwards by Keen who knew him from that work) and the NY lady is elderly and keeps to herself, makes no claims, wants no publciity and wouldn't know anything about research if it jumped up in her face. She is not very rich, lives in a tiny house in a middle class neighborhood. You can pick on her if you want but I find it ridiculous to do so with so many hundreds, probably tousands of practicing mediums worldwide, many of who are participating in research. The 40 or so mediums working with Roy and Robinson in Edinburgh are an example.

So don't worry, Research is occurring, has been published in the past and will be in the future. Because you do not want to acquaint yourself with this data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I
am constanty amazed at how naive and impoverished such arguments truly are but then again I am not. Until I took the time to research this I was similarly inclined so can hardly blame you.

BillHoyt

12th August 2003, 09:13 PM

Steve,

When the h*** are you going to start backing up your outlandish claims about Einstein? About Occam's razor? When are you going to stand up and face the facts. This last tirade about skeptics abandoning science when convenient is entirely based on your notion that Occam's razor is no longer used in science.

Marshall the evidence or stop it. Those are the rules here. Choose your path:

o Support your claim with evidence
o State you believe it despite having no evidence
o State you refuse to answer the question

Loki

12th August 2003, 09:23 PM

SteveGrenard,

...unless JE is scientifically debunked or discredited or validated, I can't be certain about him.
That's your *personal* choice Steve - to weight the the evidence and conclude "I'm not sure". But what I'm replying to is what you said : "if you a true skeptic who places your faith in the scientific method you cannot make any conclusions on him until he has b een scientifically debunked or validated".

Again, this is not so. There *is* evidence, and it's entirely possible to be a skeptical and to say *right now* that JE is a fake.

Any pro or con evidence you get off the television or from uncontrolled public performances or 60 second telephone readings on LKL is worthless. I agree: none for, and none against
Yes, the value of CO., LKL, etc evidence is zero one way of the other - but that's not *all* the evidence available!

With respect to the physics evidence, there is enough we don't know to make a similar conclusion ...
Ah ... "Mediumship of the gaps". What we do know says it can't happen. You think the answer lies in what we don't. Okay - but don't try to call that "following the evidence".

"What we don't know" is precisely that Steve - something we don't know.

So he must be scientifically debunked.
Nope. If I introduce you to a dowser tomorrow is your initial reaction :

a. I think he's genuine
b. I think he's a fraud.
c. I don't have enough data to decide one way or the other.

Seems like you'd choose (c)? Sorry, but *until* the dowser establishes a positive result, he doesn't deserve option (c) - because he's working against the established laws of physics.

I can understand why you are now turning away from the scientific method when it is being invoked against your worldview. It is fascinating how cynics use that argument when it suits them and disdain it when it doesn't. It is very funny.
It's at moments like this that I understand why so many people have strong issues with you. Could you say something less relevant and more insulting? Probably, but this is a pretty good effort.

I think there would be immediate outcries from people such as yourself citing a conflict of interest if they funded their own research.
You somehow missed my point. Here, I'll type a little slower for you - why isn't this being done? You seem to say "because critics will claim 'not valid'" Of course they will! But why do the believers not want to do this? Just fear?

I have not asked the NY trance or the British trance if they are inetrested. ...We were not doing research on them.
(Sigh) Yes, Steve, I can read - i know you aren't doing this. What I wondering is why *no one* is doing this. You answer appears to be "I don't know"?

So don't worry, Research is occurring, has been published in the past and will be in the future.
Yep. I await something interesting. Something beyond "statistical anomalies discovered through meta-analysis" would be good. Oh wait, you found a trance medium that is 100% accurate on almost 200 different items of information! How about we test that? Oh, sorry she's "too old" and "not interested". Okay.

Because you do not weant to acquaint yourself with this data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just because you want to accept anything and everything placed in front of you doesn't mean it does exist.

I am constanty amazed at how naive such arguments truly are but then again I am not. Until I took the time to research this I was similarly inclined so can hardly blame you.
Patronising little *****. "I used to be dumb like you, until I saw the light". Well, I'm convinced!

SteveGrenard

12th August 2003, 10:21 PM

L: Again, this is not so. There *is* evidence, and it's entirely possible to be a skeptical and to say *right now* that JE is a fake.

Reply: Aside from evidence gleaned from uncontrolled public performances of Edward, what other evidence is available that you cite? Please provide this.

L: Yes, the value of CO., LKL, etc evidence is zero one way of the other - but that's not *all* the evidence available!

Reply: Yes, what is the other evidence? Please don't tell me its mystery-man O'Neill. That was the biggest piece of hoaxing b.s. randi has come up since Project Alpha. Of course randi has warned us he is a trickster, charlatan and a liar so we
shoudnt be surprised if Mr O'Neill was more than a wee bit coached on this account of his.

L: Ah ... "Mediumship of the gaps". What we do know says it can't happen. You think the answer lies in what we don't. Okay - but don't try to call that "following the evidence".

"What we don't know" is precisely that Steve - something we don't know.

Reply: From my POV more like an argument from crippling complexity.

L: Nope. If I introduce you to a dowser tomorrow is your initial reaction :

a. I think he's genuine
b. I think he's a fraud.
c. I don't have enough data to decide one way or the other.

Reply: I cannot even begin to answer this question except to say I have no information, knowledge nor have I studied or been shown any evidence about dowsing so I cannot answer the question. I guess I get a zero on that one. If you wish to compare apples and oranges, try doing it with someone else.
I can taste the difference.

The etablished laws of physics are what? Can you summarize them for us? Is quantum theory turning physics on its rear end or not? I think there are a lot of physicsts who feel that it is.
List ALL the "established" laws of physics and what establishes them.

L: It's at moments like this that I understand why so many people have strong issues with you. Could you say something less relevant and more insulting? Probably, but this is a pretty good effort.

Reply: Its a simple and truthful from the heart observation. I have Claus Larsen yelling and screaming about the scientific method, I have Hoyt yelling and screaming about Occam's Razor and the scientific method, we are asked for falsifiable hypotheses and then, to suit your own thesis, you don't need of any of this. You can't have it both ways.

L: You somehow missed my point. Here, I'll type a little slower for you - why isn't this being done? You seem to say "because critics will claim 'not valid'" Of course they will! But why do the believers not want to do this? Just fear?

Reply: You don't know if its being done and never will. If JE or any other wealthy medium is funding mediumship research on mediums other than themselves, you will no more hear of it just as we do not know who gave Randi his million dollar prize money.
You feel that it is okay for Randi to claim he has a million dollar prize but not reveal who the donor is but you want research that is occuring right now to be funded in the open by donors who are made known to you? You can't have it both ways. JE will also never fund research to vaidate himself, of that you can be certain because it is unethical and dishonest. Your suggesting it only indicates to that you are ethically corrupt.

L: (Sigh) Yes, Steve, I can read - i know you aren't doing this. What I wondering is why *no one* is doing this. You answer appears to be "I don't know"?

Reply: You can't read very well either so I will go slow for you. Very carefully understand that there are hundreds of mediums/psychics and volunteers willingly involved in the such research, in the past and right now. I needn't bother some retired person who hardly gets out of her house to become a lab rat half a continent away. I dont think so. This is basic scumbag tactics and I would appreciate it if you would not fabricate phoney dialogue to go along with it also.

I brought up my experience, and I will go reaaallly slow here because I was asked a question about what got me interested and it was this person who represented the answer. I said it was anecdotal, I told you and anyone listening they could freekin take or leave it. But please don't harass this person any more. Thank you or we can start talking about your mom. Would you like that?

L: Yep. I await something interesting. Something beyond "statistical anomalies discovered through meta-analysis" would be good. Oh wait, you found a trance medium that is 100% accurate on almost 200 different items of information! How about we test that? Oh, sorry she's "too old" and "not interested". Okay.

reply: Its clear to me you havent lifted a book or read a journal paper on this subject so I feel you will be finding out about this when you are dead yourself and not before. You gotta get up off your arse and do some research. Again, please stop harassing this woman or I will be looking for information on Mrs. Loki to discuss as well. Was your mom named after an avenging angel also? Did she name you Loki for some special reason? Did she believe in angels Loki? You want more or will you stop harassing this woman?

L: Just because you want to accept anything and everything placed in front of you doesn't mean it does exist.

Reply: Unfortunately nothing is placed before me. One has to go out and find it. After you do, you can read, evauate and dscriminate. You, obviously, have done nothing in that respect or you would be discussing issues instead of acting like an armchair rhetorical skeptic.

This place and this discussion is a freeking waste of time. See you ina couple of days. I am taking a trip. Bye.

KelvinG

12th August 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

This place and this discussion is a freeking waste of time. See you ina couple of days. I am taking a trip. Bye.

I don't think this is a very fair statement Steve. Loki made some good points. Just because he didn't nod obediently and agree with everything you said doesn't mean he isn't entitled to his opinion.

And do really expect anyone to believe that you know a medium who is 100% accurate on 200 pieces of information, yet she is suspiciously not available for testing.

Someone is naive and misinformed here Steve, but I don't think it's Loki.

SteveGrenard

12th August 2003, 10:56 PM

KG: I don't think this is a very fair statement Steve. Loki made some good points. Just because he didn't nod obediently and agree with everything you said doesn't mean he isn't entitled to his opinion.

Reply: Lets see why this is a waste of time:

1. Loki says we don't need the scientific method anymore, there is
non-scientific evidence to use. How convenient. But does he
offer it. no? We have ruled out anything from public performances as uncontrolled and unreliabe. Where is the smoking gun? If its Michael O'Neill, excuse me while I pick myself off the floor and try to stop laughing.

2. Loki says the established laws of physics preclude or somehow
prevents JE from being valid and causes him to be a fake.
I ask him to set forth all the established laws of physics and
what makes them established before I will go any further on
generalization. Its interesting how he nows segues back to
appealing to science again. He really does think he can have it
every way. Which is it going to be?

3. Loki invents fake dialogue between a private person (a trance
medium) and myself and ridicules her and me. I revealed my
experience with her in answer to a specific question (see
above). If nobody can answer a question here anymore
honestly without being ridiculed for it, I for one, feel not just
that this forum is a waste of time, it is not someplace where I
will, after this post, ever post again. There are other ports on
the internet where you will not be greeted by ridicule.
Where you can be skeptical and open minded and discuss real
facts instead of fantasies dreamed up by cynics to defend their
positions. I have also said, KG, in case you missed it about 5
times that my account was anecdotal and you can take it or
leave it. I really don't give a dam. That goes for you as well. Do what you want with that information.

KG: And do really expect anyone to believe that you know a medium who is 100% accurate on 200 pieces of information, yet she is suspiciously not available for testing.

Reply: You can think whatever you want. Other people here have been given information so they can see her for themselves.

KG: Someone is naive and misinformed here Steve, but I don't think it's Loki.

Reply: Think whatever you want KG. Its fine with me. I hope you and Loki are very happy together.

KelvinG

12th August 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Think whatever you want KG. Its fine with me. I hope you and Loki are very happy together.

Geez, it doesn't take you long to go from skeptical nice guy to angry believer.

But, just some friendly advice for the future. For someone who is supposedly so devoted to the scientific method and testing as proof of paranormal abilities, you may want to tone down the anecdotal evidence. Surely you realize you are opening yourself up to ridicule by making a seemingly outrageous claim and then not backing it up.
That's very unscientific if you ask me.

You remind me of a kid at school who tries to impress the other kids by bragging that his dad can lift a car above his head, but refuses to let anyone come over to his house and see the feat performed.
Are you trying to impress people Steve?
Do you think it's working?

You say you don't care about what people think and they can "take it or leave it" for all you care. Considering how angry you got in some of your previous posts, I think you do care what people think.
And you obviously don't take it very well when others disagree with you.

Anyways, good luck in the future Steve, and enjoy your trip.

Loki

12th August 2003, 11:22 PM

SteveGrenard,

Since you're away for a few days, there's no hurry to reply .. so I'll just touch on a copuple of points where we seem to be talking past each other.

(regarding dowsing)I cannot even begin to answer this question except to say I have no information, knowledge nor have I studied or been shown any evidence about dowsing so I cannot answer the question.
(sigh) Okay, well that about does it. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you want me to believe that you don't know what dowsing is. What can I say??

...what other evidence is available that you cite? Please provide this.
...
Yes, what is the other evidence?
Already did, but you seem to want it repeated so at a minimum :

1. The complete lack of an "enabling mechanism" for ADC that is compatible with known physics.
2. Admitted fraud by other humans engaged in similar activity.

Look, my point is very simple ...

If you were a "skeptic" in the 15th Century you'd be entitled to say "the Earth is flat". That's a position that was supported by the available evidence :

1. The Sun clear moves across the sky;
2. If the earth was round, we'd start to walk "downhill" and eventually fall off if we travelled too far from home.

Since I can test #2 by simply walking for a few days in any direction, it's obviuous the Earth is flat.

If I was to meet a man claiming that the Earth was "cube shaped" (http://www.timecube.com) I'd be entitled to ask for evidence. If he couldn't provide any, I don't have to concede that he might be right simply because I haven't proven him wrong. If a few days later I meet a man who claims the Earth is "round", and he has evidence, I can look at his evidence and make up my own mind.

In relation to JE, this is very simple - he's making a specific claim, and (you admit this) providing absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. The fact that no one has proven his claim false doesn't automatically grant his claim "too close too call" status.

I think that I'm saying the Earth's round, and JE's trying to tell me it's a cube.

You think that I'm saying the Earth's flat, and JE's trying to tell me it's round.

Either way, the onus is on him to make his case!! If he does, I'll admit that my view of the Earth was mistaken, and I'll get used to living in a world shaped by JE. But until he backs up his claim, I don't have to give it equal weight!!! There is a body of evidence that says he's a fake.

You can't read very well either so I will go slow for you. Very carefully understand that there are hundreds of mediums/psychics and volunteers willingly involved in the such research, in the past and right now. I needn't bother some retired person who hardly gets out of her house to become a lab rat half a continent away. I dont think so
Perhaps we aren't speaking the same language, Steve. I'm not asking *you*, or your poor little old 100% accurate trance medium to get involved. And I'm not saying that no research is being done. I'm just asking why the believers themselves are not actively involved in research of their own. Claus is involved in the "Skeptic Report", and he (at least appears) to be interested in gathering and publishing data. Where's the believer equivalent? Where's the web sites where I can read about the "Hoboken Mediums Alliance", and the results of the trials they've conducted on their local medium? Every web site I visit seems to be full of quotes from books, and references to otehr web sites. Doesn't anyone bother to try and gather some data?

I was asking about "amateur" research. Both times you've answered" because *I* don't want to" - I get it, really I do. I though you might have some opinion on why this isn't widespread, given the enormous interest world wide in ADC - apparently not!

One last comment...
Is quantum theory turning physics on its rear end or not?

Quantum Mechanics makes my head hurt. Every time I think I've grasped some part of it, everything shifts a little to the left and I find myself examining a whole new set of concepts. But despite being such a wonderful field for woo-woo speculation, one thing seems clear (as best I can tell) - QM is not at odds with "classic" physics in the macro world. If you want to convince me that QM is somehow the mechanism for "psi" or "ADC", then produce the damn data, Steve. Until then, you're not "being a skeptic", you're just wishing and wanting. "Hey look everybody - there's an unexplored area of physics over there! Quick, lets theorise that psi probably exists in that bit we can't see!!!"

Loki

12th August 2003, 11:45 PM

SteveGrenard/KelvinG,

We'll probably cross post again (ah...3 sided conversations!), but I just wanted to comment on something Steve posted while I was preparing my last reply...

1. Loki says we don't need the scientific method anymore, there is
non-scientific evidence to use.
This comment tells me we aren't even close to understanding each other. I never said, or meant that. At the risk of labouring a point, I'd summarise what has happened like this :

Steve : JE must be either Debunked or validated using the scientific method before a reasonable person can have an opinon

Steve is claiming that JE *must* be debunked using the scientific method

Me : Not true - his claim is at odds with established evidence (namely physics and human nature)

Me saying that this is not true - not all claims must be debunked before an opinion can be formed

Steve : What! So know you say we don't have to use the scientific method? You say JE has to use to prove his claim, and you *don't* have to use it to prove yours!!

***BUZZ***

And that's where the error in understanding creeps in... The evidence I'm saying "works against" JE has been collected using the scientific method - it's the body of science itself that he's up against.

Gee, this is too hard, and probably not worth the effort. I only wanted to make a single point that seemed fairly clear cut - that not all claims are equal. To me, you debunk the data that someone puts up in support of their claim. For JE, there is no data. For the eleventy seventh time, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to reject JE until that data arrives - sitting on the fence on this issue is *not* the reasonable default position. I can see you disagree Steve, but I think that's just a weighting of the data, while you seem to think it's an abandoning of skeptical principles.

2. Loki says the established laws of physics preclude or somehow prevents JE from being valid and causes him to be a fake.
Exactly - the laws, arrived at via the scientific method, provide no know mechanism, or application of existing forces, that would produce ADC. Therefore, JE is either (a) a fake, (b) doing something that "beyond science (meaning science will never understand it)"; (c) exposing a flaw in an existing law; or (d) utilitising an entirely new law that is as yet undiscovered and undocumented.

The above choices *are* data derived logically from the laws of physics Steve, and they tell me that until such time as JE can provide supporting data, then (a) is far and a way the most likely alternative.

3. Loki invents fake dialogue between a private person (a trance medium) and myself and ridicules her and me. I revealed my experience with her in answer to a specific question (see
above).
Steve I apologise, since you feel this strongly about this - I though it was obvious that I was creating a parody to make a point. But one man's parody can be another's insult, so I'll just say that I didn't intend insult here - I thought it was humourous. Humour at your expense? Perhaps a little, but not intended to be taken so strongly. Sorry.

Now, I'll just post this, and read what was posted while I was writing!!!

(edited to add) : Hey whadda know - no cross posts!!

CFLarsen

13th August 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If nobody can answer a question here anymore honestly without being ridiculed for it, I for one, feel not just that this forum is a waste of time, it is not someplace where I will, after this post, ever post again.

OK, then. Ask Hal to have your account deleted. It's OK, I've saved all your posts anyway.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There are other ports on the internet where you will not be greeted by ridicule. Where you can be skeptical and open minded and discuss real facts instead of fantasies dreamed up by cynics to defend their positions.

Really? Pam's Board of Pam-Adoration? Or your own SurvivalScience? Oh, no, I forgot: You had to shut that down, because it turned out to be mainly Steve arguing with Steve.

It's been very interesting to know you. Most educational, in fact. You have done more to help skepticism on its way than few others, not by presenting a skeptical way of thinking, but by exposing just how silly, obtuse and ignorant a believer/wannabe-paranormal-researcher can be. You have made it abundantly clear that not even someone who dresses up in scientific mumbojumbo can stand the scrutiny of a few skeptics.

Maybe being a skeptic helps after all.

Buh-bye, Steve.

Lothian

13th August 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There are other ports on
the internet where you will not be greeted by ridicule.

http://www.woowoo.net
http://www.gullible.com and
http://intellectuallychallenged.com (http://www.intellectuallychallenged.com)

Kerberos

13th August 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by renata

I can add all the names up- but if we want to know how many types of names, it will be more difficult, because there would be no exact overlap necessarily between 1900 and 1970, and I don't feel like calculating manually. But perhaps only the numbers of names in total for those years are relevant. In that case, I can do the math relatively easily- but I do not want to do it unless someone somewhere will use it for analysis! :)

And whereas we have this name data, it will be difficult to gather the untainted transcripts for analysis.

Well Claus has offered to find transcripts and I've agreed to count the names and letters.

I any case I think the US Census Bureau would be a better source, since we really don't know if the different letters occur as often in the 1000 most popular names as in the population total. The problem with that source of course is that it includes last names, and it’s my impression that JE mostly gets first names and in any case the entire family only a few different last names.

Jeff Corey

13th August 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
LThis place and this discussion is a freeking waste of time. See you ina couple of days. I am taking a trip. Bye.
Don't take the brown acid!
too late.

Thanz

13th August 2003, 07:19 AM

Thanz

13th August 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

No, "suggestive" at least, not best. When scientists say "suggestive" they mean it lends support to an hypothesis. It is often used as an understatement.
No, I meant at best. In that, at best, it may lend support to the hypothesis that JE is cold reading. Given the state of the data used, it may just be useless. I don't think that it can be elevated beyond "suggestive", hence the use of the term "at best".

JE's initials and names refer to people both living and dead. Death records would not be more relevant.
Point taken.

How about you get more specific, Thanz? Why is it inadequate here?
How much more specific do I need to get? I don't think that the sample size is big enough. If we just use juninho's numbers for the sake of argument, some letters have a probability of about one in fifty. In 78 guesses, it is not anything meaningful if that letter does not appear. In 700 guess, that is much more relevant.

Let me ask it this way: If you picked 78 random people off the street, do you think that the name distribution will mirror that of the total population? Or do you think it is possible that it will be skewed? What if you took 1000 people at random, and compared their names? I think you would agree that the 1000 person sample is much more likely to mirror the name distribution of the population in general than the 78 person sample. I don't think that we could conclude much from the 78 person sample. It is just too small.

Lurker

13th August 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

I think you would agree that the 1000 person sample is much more likely to mirror the name distribution of the population in general than the 78 person sample. I don't think that we could conclude much from the 78 person sample. It is just too small.

Thanz is totally right here. I don't have the equation on me right now but there is one that governs confidence in sample size versus population size. Clearly 78 is far too small.

Lurker

BillHoyt

13th August 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
much more specific do I need to get? I don't think that the sample size is big enough. If we just use juninho's numbers for the sake of argument, some letters have a probability of about one in fifty. In 78 guesses, it is not anything meaningful if that letter does not appear. In 700 guess, that is much more relevant.

Let me ask it this way: If you picked 78 random people off the street, do you think that the name distribution will mirror that of the total population? Or do you think it is possible that it will be skewed? What if you took 1000 people at random, and compared their names? I think you would agree that the 1000 person sample is much more likely to mirror the name distribution of the population in general than the 78 person sample. I don't think that we could conclude much from the 78 person sample. It is just too small.
Thanz,

Try again. One cannot make the blanket statement that n=78 is inadequate unless one specifies the type of statistical test to be applied, the significance level to discriminate between accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis and the desired power of the test.

Cheers,

BillHoyt

13th August 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

Thanz is totally right here. I don't have the equation on me right now but there is one that governs confidence in sample size versus population size. Clearly 78 is far too small.

Lurker

Lurker,

What are your experimental design assumptions? What statistical test? What desired significance level? What power?

Cheers,

Thanz

13th August 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Thanz,

Try again. One cannot make the blanket statement that n=78 is inadequate unless one specifies the type of statistical test to be applied, the significance level to discriminate between accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis and the desired power of the test.

Cheers,
Well, Mr. Hoyt, why don't you tell us for what set of parameters n=78 would be an adequate sample?

BillHoyt

13th August 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, Mr. Hoyt, why don't you tell us for what set of parameters n=78 would be an adequate sample?
Thanz,

It seems you are willing to make the claim that n=78 is inadequate despite having no notion of the statistical test, the significance level or the desired power. Please prove me wrong by backing up your claim.

Cheers,

CFLarsen

13th August 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, Mr. Hoyt, why don't you tell us for what set of parameters n=78 would be an adequate sample?

You can't say "No! Not good enough", and then not come up with something better.

If you think 78 is too small, then what is big enough? You obviously have worked this out statistically, so it should be easy for you to simply post your calculations.

BillHoyt

13th August 2003, 08:18 AM

Thanz,

Let's take this step-by-step. First question: what is your assumed statistical distribution model on which you base the claim n=78 is inadequate?

Cheers,

Thanz

13th August 2003, 08:41 AM

Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Larsen -

Before we go any further, do either of you think that the sample size of 78 IS adequate to give us actual meaningful, useful data in a comparison against letters of first names in the population at large? Is that your position - all we need is 78?

AlienX

13th August 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Don't mention it, AlienX. ;)

LOL, no, I'll spare you the rolleyes, AlienX. I realize that they are the only unedited readings that we have, but the reason that I don't believe it's fair to use those readings is because no matter what some might say, those of us who are familiar with JE's readings, from watching the show, and/or from going to seminars, know for a fact that these short little phone readings are not representative of a full JE reading. They're just not.

An average JE reading goes on for quite a while. These mini-readings are timed in mere seconds. They can't measure up to the usual length reading. It's impossible, and because of that fact, and because there is no immediate follow-up where the sitter can verify some of the things that JE said that flew by too fast for them to react to initially, these readings are less than ideal to work with. Far less than ideal......neo

edited to chance the word "edited" to "unedited"

I do have a couple of points RE: your reply.

JE does keep on going onto LKL and doing this so he obviously doesn't have a probelm with the conditions set. Doing this is not really publicity as the readings simply make you question his ability in the first place - so why do it?

If he is doing what he says he can then why is the information not accurate to begin with and apparently gets better the longer he spends with the sitter and if he can see them?. We have wild stabs in the dark that are blatantly incorrect then .. well you know the rest ;-)

OK to me any information given at the start of a reading MUST be as accurate as information given at the end of a reading - why would it be rubbish at the start given the claimed communication method?. To me the fact that a reading gets better over time points EVEN MORE towards cold reading. He is using information received to make deductions about the sitter - obviously the more information received the more accurate your guesses are going to be. That's what make Derren Brown (Not a psychic) so impressive - he gets awesome hits very quickly - I doub't he could do as well by phone though - you con't see the person - it's a nightmare scenario that noe for a cold reader.

Summary.

Given the claimed communication method why are short readings not accurate at all - really there should be no difference between accuracy between long and short readings - also a long reading there should be no difference between begining middle and end phases. Harder for JE to do this as he somethimes tries wild guesses to start with.

Better readings over a longer time frame reinforces cold reading as the mechanism. Short accurate readings with little to no feedback from the reader would reinforce "real" mediumship but with JE we are not seeing this pattern.

TA

AlienX

BillHoyt

13th August 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Larsen -

Before we go any further, do either of you think that the sample size of 78 IS adequate to give us actual meaningful, useful data in a comparison against letters of first names in the population at large? Is that your position - all we need is 78?
Thanz,

You have claimed it is not. Please answer the questions put to you:

o what distribution model do you assume?
o what significance level do you want to use to discriminate between accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis?
o what power do you want to achieve with the test?

Cheers,

CFLarsen

13th August 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Larsen -

Before we go any further, do either of you think that the sample size of 78 IS adequate to give us actual meaningful, useful data in a comparison against letters of first names in the population at large? Is that your position - all we need is 78?

Mr. Thanz,

No, not "before we go any further". You claimed that 78 was inadequate. Now, tell us what you consider adequate, and why.

Please refer to the appropriate statistical methods. It must be easy, since you were so quick to complain. No more stalling, no more excuses.

Thanz

13th August 2003, 09:30 AM

Mr. Hoyt -

I have no desire to go through a statistical analysis of something that I feel is obvious unless there is an actual dispute. If you do not think that 78 is adequate, then we have no dispute.

So, before we go through any detailed analysis, is it your position that 78 is adequate to give us actual meaningful, useful data in a comparison against letters of first names in the population at large? Is that your position - all we need is 78?

I have no desire to argue for the sake of arguing.

Lurker

13th August 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Lurker,

What are your experimental design assumptions? What statistical test? What desired significance level? What power?

Cheers,

Experimental Design: Let us assume you can randomly choose the samples from the total population. By doing this, you are assuming a best possible scenario. Anything else would require a LARGER sample size to make up for the deficiency.

Statistical Test: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Input 95% confidence in your data. Then a confidence interval of 5, which is VERY high for the multivariate statistics you are using here. With so many names, the +-5% for each name would be exceedingly high. Next, enter the population fo 280million. Have it calculate and voila! Out pops the number 384 for a sample size. Far higher than 78, right?

I agree it is not exact and leaves a bit to be desired but it is a decent approximation, no?

Lurker

CFLarsen

13th August 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Hoyt -

I have no desire to go through a statistical analysis of something that I feel is obvious unless there is an actual dispute. If you do not think that 78 is adequate, then we have no dispute.

So, before we go through any detailed analysis, is it your position that 78 is adequate to give us actual meaningful, useful data in a comparison against letters of first names in the population at large? Is that your position - all we need is 78?

I have no desire to argue for the sake of arguing.
It is most definitely not for the sake of arguing. You complained about 78 not being adequate. Before we go on with this analysis, we should most definitely hear from you, who are obviously an expert in these matters.

Please stop stalling. Stop evading. Stop changing the subject.

Or admit that you have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Thanz

13th August 2003, 09:43 AM

I agree with Lurker.

Edited to add:

Oh, and Claus, i think it is indeed arguing for the sake of arguing. Otherwise, why the reluctance on the part of both Mr. Hoyt and yourself to commit to 78 as an adequate number?

CFLarsen

13th August 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
I agree with Lurker.

Edited to add:

Oh, and Claus, i think it is indeed arguing for the sake of arguing. Otherwise, why the reluctance on the part of both Mr. Hoyt and yourself to commit to 78 as an adequate number?
Thanz,

I think it is obvious by now that you had no idea what you were talking about. You have stalled, evaded, obfuscated this issue. Tried to put the onus on others, shifting the blame. Just about all those techniques we see from woowoos.

Now, you lean on Lurker, instead of coming up with something yourself. You agree, but you don't explain why you agree. You simply don't have a clue what Lurker is talking about, do you?

You do that all the time: You never do anything yourself, all you do is complain about others.

Now, it's all BillHoyt and my fault: We are - supposedly - the ones who are "reluctant". No, Thanz: You are the one who is "reluctant".

Some might even say frantically on the run.

Thanz

13th August 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Thanz,

I think it is obvious by now that you had no idea what you were talking about. You have stalled, evaded, obfuscated this issue. Tried to put the onus on others, shifting the blame. Just about all those techniques we see from woowoos.

Now, you lean on Lurker, instead of coming up with something yourself. You agree, but you don't explain why you agree. You simply don't have a clue what Lurker is talking about, do you?

You do that all the time: You never do anything yourself, all you do is complain about others.

Now, it's all BillHoyt and my fault: We are - supposedly - the ones who are "reluctant". No, Thanz: You are the one who is "reluctant".

Some might even say frantically on the run.
Oh please, give it a rest Claus.

I stated something that I think is glaringly obvious - if you want to examine JE guesses of letters of the alphabet in comparison to the general population, you are going to need more than 78 guesses to work with. Lurker has kindly confirmed this.

As for whether or not I do anything myself, I did find a source of names for this very analysis.

Both you and Mr. Hoyt have jumped on me to prove my claim - which, as I said, I view as glaringly obvious - while carefully using language that doesn't actually dispute my claim. When asked to actually dispute my claim, you decline.

If you can come up with a reason to prove my claim when you haven't even disputed it (and in fact have refused to dispute it) I'd love to hear it.

Of course, I just think that you and Mr. Hoyt refused to dispute my claim because even you know that 78 is not adequate - and that its inadequacy is glaringly obvious.