The "Process" of John Edward

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Thanz,

I have answered everything. You continue to fail to understand the answers. It is useless to continue with you because you twist my answers into your answers or no answers at all.
Peddle this BS somewhere else, Mr. Hoyt. You have spectacularly failed to address the following example:
Let's make this a concrete example:

Reading 1:
JE: I am getting a "J" connection here.
Sitter: J?
JE: Yes, a "J" - like John, or Joe
sitter: I had an uncle Joe....

My method: one J guess.
BillHoyt:3? 4? J guesses?

Reading 2
JE: I am getting a "J" connection..
Sitter: My grandfather was John

Thanz:1 J
BillHoyt:1 J

Reading 3:
JE: I am getting a "Jim" connection here...
Sitter: Nope, I don't know any Jim
JE:What is the Canada connection?
Sitter: Blah blah

Thanz: 1 J
BillHoyt: 1 J

Reading 4
JE: I am sensing an older female
Sitter: My Mother has passed
JE: was her name "Jennifer"
Sitter: no, it was Roberta

Thanz: 1 J
Bill Hoyt: 1 J

Now, here is my problem with your counting method. In your method, reading 1 has as much weight as readings 2, 3, and 4 combined. However, in all cases, he is trying to make one J connection. Remember, we are trying to count how many times he will guess a certain letter, for cold reading purposes. If we have 3 separate readings (2, 3, 4) in which he makes a "J" guess, that is much different than the one reading with the multiple names. That distinction is lost in your method. My method counts all of them equally.
Why do you consider reading 1 to be equivalent to readings 2, 3, and 4 combined? What is the logical basis for this?

Let's not also forget this post:
Bill, when are you actually going to address the real issues here? Lets try taking this step by step. Let's see if you can actually address them point by point.

1.Both rejections of the null hypothesis, however you feel like defining that term, were based on flawed data of one kind or another. Kerberos on flawed control data, yours on flawed counting data.

2. The test that you propose of the null hypothesis is capable of being performed with data other than the data that you yourself have compiled.

3. If we perform your test of the null hypothesis with the raw data compiled by Kerberos (his counts of intials), the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

4. If we perform your test of the null hypothesis with the raw data that I have compiled, we also cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Do you have anything substantive at all to say about any of these points, or do you just wish to insult me again and hope that nobody realizes that you are just runninng away?
Anything to say to these point, Mr. Hoyt?
I have said before the sitters responses don't matter for the counting. I have repeated it. I have said before that JE's acceptance of those responses also does not matter for the counting. I have repeated that.
Well, finally, some agreement. They are irrelevant for counting purposes. Whoopie!!
I have also clearly said that JE's acceptance of certain responses matters greatly to your 1 guess - 1 person assumption. It refutes it.
Then, by this logic, your counting method and the assumption of one guess per name is refuted everytime JE accepts one hit for a string of names. Examples:
EDWARD: Where does the Lewis or the Louis or the L-name?
CALLER: The L. I had a uncle that had died when I was a little kid.
EDWARD: Where's the Jane connection or Jeannie?
CALLER: Jane would be sister-in-law.
EDWARD: OK. Ask her. Because they're telling me to connect it either through either Janey or Jeannie.
This happens quite frequently. JE spits out a letter, or a few names, and one hits. He goes with the one hit. And thus, according to your logic, the assumption that each name should be treated as a separate guess is refuted.

Further, my method was based on logic. It was not only based on one person, one guess - as should be obvious to anyone reading this. I stated early on, for example, that if he stated that he was looking fo two J, we count 2 guesses.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by voidx

I would score it like this.

1 K letter guess
1 Karen name guess
1 C letter guess
1 11 number guess
1 narrowing guess of the 11th month novemeber
1 narrowing guess of the 11th day of any month
1 obvious mark for fishing for information :D
Thank you for your reply.

Now, I would ask you to make the assumption that for the purposes of our analysis, a guess of a name will be considered the equivalent of the guess of the first initial of that name. How would you score it (just focussing on the letters)?

[T'ai Chi]

Thanks for posting the link to the transcripts.

I'll go over them this weekend, do the analysis, and write it up, then post the results.

I'm going to do a chi-square analysis with the 6 high-frequency letters, and I'm going to do it counting Bill, Brad, and Bonch as 1.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Thanz

Thank you for your reply.

Now, I would ask you to make the assumption that for the purposes of our analysis, a guess of a name will be considered the equivalent of the guess of the first initial of that name. How would you score it (just focussing on the letters)?
Well obviously I wouldn't count "K, like in Karen" as 2 hits, it would just be one. Although I'm still not certain its wise to do it that way. I think "names" and "first letter" guess' should be counted seperately. To me its 2 overall guess', or rather, a guess with an instant modifier guess' attached to it. Its like saying, I'm getting Africa, probably like Kenya. I am making 2 guess' but its a smart thing to do because I take a blind stab at kenya, but as long as its still Africa, I'm getting points. I do realize you have to draw a line somewhere in order to do this analysis, but I'm just not sure I like the assumption your asking me to make. To clarify though if he just states Karen, then sure you could take that as a guess at a k "letter", but if he goes, K, like Karen I have a harder time accepting that.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by voidx

Well obviously I wouldn't count "K, like in Karen" as 2 hits, it would just be one. Although I'm still not certain its wise to do it that way. I think "names" and "first letter" guess' should be counted seperately. To me its 2 overall guess', or rather, a guess with an instant modifier guess' attached to it. Its like saying, I'm getting Africa, probably like Kenya. I am making 2 guess' but its a smart thing to do because I take a blind stab at kenya, but as long as its still Africa, I'm getting points. I do realize you have to draw a line somewhere in order to do this analysis, but I'm just not sure I like the assumption your asking me to make. To clarify though if he just states Karen, then sure you could take that as a guess at a k "letter", but if he goes, K, like Karen I have a harder time accepting that.
For the record, I agree with you. I also think that actual names should be scored differently. However, when I suggested that, Mr. Hoyt referred to it as "malarky" and that my attempts to distinguish them were hilarious. So, I just went with his assumption that a guess of "Karen" should be considered the same as a guess of "K". And when I did my count, taking out the extra guesses that Mr. Hoyt's method puts in, we could not reject the null hypothesis.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Thanz

For the record, I agree with you. I also think that actual names should be scored differently. However, when I suggested that, Mr. Hoyt referred to it as "malarky" and that my attempts to distinguish them were hilarious. So, I just went with his assumption that a guess of "Karen" should be considered the same as a guess of "K". And when I did my count, taking out the extra guesses that Mr. Hoyt's method puts in, we could not reject the null hypothesis.
Fair enough.

[Lurker]

Is it possible that JE uses a name for clarification on which letter he is saying? Some letters do sound alike. Similarly, some names sound alike and using an abbreviated name clears up which name we might be referring to. How do we distinguish of this is the case or not? Thus, a name may not always be a guess.

I think if we were totalling up "guesses" then I would count each name. If we were totalling up letter tallies, then a string of "J" names should be counted as one tally in my opinion.

It gets difficult when he says, hard "C" or "K" name.

Lurker

[Clancie]

214 posts in this thread from Bill Hoyt...

1007 posts in this thread, and.....

:confused:

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


"Somebody has a name like would be off of a map or something. Like they would be named for a location. Like they called the person, you know, New York or they called the person, Brooklyn or they called the person, you know, Boston."

"Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name?... Salty or pepper, cinnamon."

Explain these, please. Phonetically How does one "hear" a map name? How does one "hear" a spice name?

Fine, Pill. I forgot that I can't depend upon you guys to figure these things out for yourselves. I thought it would be clear that I was referring to those names that JE gets clairaudiently, which is how he receives the majority of the names he gets.

In those other cases, he is being clairvoyantly shown something
within his own frame of reference to prompt him to say what he needs to say to get the message out. For instance, he might know someone with a dog named ginger. That would indicate that he should give out a spice name, possibly even "ginger", but not necessarily. It could be any spice name.

The other nickname, like a person named after a location, could be conveyed to him by showing him someone he knows, or some character in a movie/book etc. named Tex, or Dallas, or Fresno. Get it? Got it? Good! :p .......neo

[Jeff Corey]

Fact check. "Clairvoyant" and "Clairaudient" are imaginary properties. I have a clairolfactory sense about that.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Fact check. "Clairvoyant" and "Clairaudient" are imaginary properties. I have a clairolfactory sense about that.

lol Jeff, I still can't believe that you stood Instig8R and myself up last Friday. (sniff) :( I can understand you not wanting to make the trip for JE, but to pass up the chance to have a drink with us????? :con2: .......neo

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry, again, what was the reason they can only get one letter? Is the communication channel noisy? Then why is it always the first letter?

~~ Paul

[Loki]

Neofight,

(From JE Transcript) : "Somebody has a name like would be off of a map or something. Like they would be named for a location. Like they called the person, you know, New York or they called the person, Brooklyn or they called the person, you know, Boston."

(neofight wrote) : In those other cases, he is being clairvoyantly shown something
within his own frame of reference to prompt him to say what he needs to say to get the message out.
Neo, I understand that your explanation ("clairvoyant images") is a possibility. I understand that *if* JE was genuine then this might be what happens. But honestly, doesn't this precise example give you even a moments pause? Doesn't it seem just a lot like classic cold reading? "Somebody has a name like would be off of a map or something" - aren't you at least a little uncomfortable about this? "... a map or something..." - hell, he isn't even saying it's a name from a map!!

Assume you're a spirit trying to convey the name "Boston" through to JE. For some reason, you can't send the name itself(obviously, some spirits can and some can't). As an aside, for some reason spirits who can send names through don't seem to send their own name very often - they send through the name of their cousin, or father, or niece. But I digress - this spirit is not only "name-challenged", but also "letter-challenged". Wants to send through "Boston", but can't get either the name or the first letter through. Why not "show" JE Boston harbor? A reconstruction of the Boston Tea party? The Boston Celtics? Bunker Hill? Instead, our well meaning but psychically crippled spirit settles on sending through "...a map, or something...". If some of JE's comments make you feel "yes, that's amazing!" doesn't this particular transcript make you feel "oh...that's pretty suspect"?

[Clancie]

Posted by Paul Anagnostopolous

Then why is it always the first letter?
It isn't, Paul. It's often much more phonetic than that, for example, he might get an 'L' and 'N' sound together for a name like "Ellen" or 'D' and 'N' sounds together for something like "Don" or "Dan". (Even in our conversations, its a lot easier to hear the consonant sounds than to distinguish vowels...and "clairaudience" is not as clear as just having a conversation with someone. Its more like receiving fragments of the complete sounds, symbols, and images and understanding them well enough to form the message from them. And, yes, I know you don't believe it works like that...just responding to your comment about the "process"....).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

It isn't, Paul. It's often much more phonetic than that, for example, he might get an 'L' and 'N' sound together for a name like "Ellen" or 'D' and 'N' sounds together for something like "Don" or "Dan". (Even in our conversations, its a lot easier to hear the consonant sounds than to distinguish vowels...and "clairaudience" is not as clear as just having a conversation with someone. Its more like receiving fragments of the complete sounds, symbols, and images and understanding them well enough to form the message from them. And, yes, I know you don't believe it works like that...just responding to your comment about the "process"....).
[/B]

What's the difference between this and classic cold reading?

Forget the explanation from JE, we cannot rely on that. Look at what is happening.

No difference at all.

[T'ai Chi]

Here are the results of my basic analysis. I got too it a little sooner than this weekend it turned out. Any comments are appreciated.

----
Introduction

Are psychic mediums really communicating with the spirits when they state letters/names, or are they thinking probabilistically and simply choosing the letters/names that are common?

The medium in question is John Edward (JE). JE has a television show called Crossing Over, and makes appearances on Larry King Live. On each of these shows he does readings, and claims to get messages from the spirits. Skeptics say that JE is performing cold reading, a collection of techniques used (and in use) by magicians to simulate getting messages from the beyond. Which of these explanations fits the facts? Through a basic analysis, this paper will show that JE used the high frequency letters less than what was expected.

We can only speculate without actually collecting and analyzing data. Many skeptics and believers alike have dissected JE's transcripts in order to reveal what was going, or not going, on. These approaches, while instructive, do not lend themselves to numerical analyses. A few members (skeptics and believers) on the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF) bulletin board thought it would be instructive to see if they could analyze the letters/names JE gives in a numerical manner, and see what conclusions could be drawn. This paper is one skeptic's attempt.

The transcripts of three Larry King Live shows in which JE appeared were obtained from the JREF thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032. Specifically, these transcripts were: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/10/lkl.00.html, http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/06/lkl.00.html, and http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/28/lkl.00.html.

Methods
This analysis focused on the letters/names clearly referring to humans, that occured only where JE was doing readings over the phone. The instances where a letter/name guess occured on a Crossing Over clip were not included in the counts.

This paper reports the results of a chi-square goodness of fit analysis on JE's usage of high-frequency letters. The “high-frequency” letters were defined by this author as the letters where (see footnote 1) 80*frequency for that letter according to the 1990 combined adjusted male and female Census Bureau data is greater than 5. Using that definition, the following 6 letters were determined to be high-frequency: A, C, D, J, M, R.

The full frequencies can be obtained at: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin showthread.php?s=&threadid=24602&perpage=40&pagenumber=10.

The counts of A, C, D, J, M, and R were obtained from the three transcripts. Occurances of a string of names were counted as a singular occurance of that letter. Hypothetically, 'like a John, Jake, or Jack', if listed at the same place in the reading by JE, would be counted as 1 guess of J, not as 3 guesses. It seems reasonable that JE focuses more on the sound of the name, as he has stated himself numerous times, although whether this is the case is still up for debate. In this example, JE would be talking about a name that starts with a J. This author agrees that a more complicated analysis would treat name guesses and letter guesses separately, and/or somehow penalize the medium by weighting multiple name guesses less.

The table of the counts, per transcript and the total counts, is shown below:

(9/10/01, 9/6/02, 3/28/03, Observed total counts)
A: (0, 1, 0, 1)
C: (2, 0, 2, 4)
D: (0, 1, 0, 1)
J: (4, 2, 2, 8)
M: (0, 1, 1, 2)
R: (1, 1, 1, 3)

Expected letter frequencies (from the 1990 combined adjusted male and female Census Bureau data):
A: .0648
C: .0721
D: .0742
J: .1336
M: .1003
R: .080

Expected counts = 80 guesses*1990 combined adjusted male and female Census Bureau data frequencies =
A: 5.18
C: 5.768
D: 5.936
J: 10.68
M: 8.030
R: 6.40

The test statistic for a chi-square goodness of fit test is: SUM[(Observed-Expected)^2/Expected]. This test statistic would be compared to a chi-square distribution on k-1 degrees of freedom, where k is the number of distinct groups. Readers interested in specific details can do a Google search for 'chi-square goodness of fit test' for specific calculation details.

Conclusion

We reject the hypothesis that JE uses letter frequencies according to the 1990 combined adjusted male and female Census Bureau data (p-value from a chi-square goodness of fit test on 5 degrees of freedom = .0102). According to the observed counts, JE used the high frequency letters less than what was expected.

Discussion

There are many potential problems with the analysis presented in this paper.

First, it is not clear to the author if defining the high-frequency letters in the ad-hoc manner which was done was appropriate. Second, one assumption for a chi-square analysis is that the sample values are independent. The independence assumption was violated several times when JE would guess more than one letter/name while he was reading the same person.

It would be reasonable to perform a follow-up analysis with more than 3 transcripts. The author feels that this study is limited by "pseudo replication". The sample size, "n", is really 3, not 80. Having more guesses per transcript doesn't increase our number of transcripts.

It would also be interesting to use a more current Census Bureau list and see how that impacts the analysis.

It is also important to note that many different people have different methods of counting the letter/name occurances. Clearly the analysis is highly sensitive to the counting methodology. It would be wise for the skeptical and believer communities to develop and agree upon a standardized counting method.

Ideally, the author believes that it would be more productive from a scientific viewpoint to study JE in a lab setting as opposed to studying the transcripts from a television show, but believes one can still learn something informative by analyzing the transcripts from JE's television appearances.

---

(1) 80 guesses was estimated by the author as an eyeball average of JREF posters' counts of the total number of guesses.

[Ersby]

There are two flaws in Tai Chi’s paper. (I, by the way, have no qualification in statistics whatsoever.)

Flaw 1: Tai Chi’s analysis does not include JE’s 1998 appearance on LKL

Flaw 2: The total number of guesses (of names) across all four LKL appearances is not 80, but 52.

Counting up all four transcripts, I make the results,

A: 2
C: 6
D: 2
J: 14
M: 4
R: 4

(NB, C only=1, C or K=3, K=2. Given that JE gets his info phonetically, it’s fair to group these together)
(“J” includes “J or G” guesses, of which there were 4)

Using the above method to get expected frequencies we get:

A: 3.3 (JE uses A less than expected)
C: 3.7 (assuming Tai Chi’s figures accounted for the C/K effect, JE uses these more)
D: 3.8 (JE uses these less)
J: 6.9 (JE uses these more)
M: 5.2 (JE uses these less)
R: 4.1 (JE uses these as expected)

Now, one big problem is the small number of guesses we have to go by. Most of the times we see JE using a letter less than you’d think, the margin is by about one.

However, I doubt that this method of analysing transcripts has anything going for it. Without looking at the responses and the circumstances leading to the guess, it’s impossible to say if there is cold reading or not. For example, the D guesses are less than you’d expect, but there’s a reason for that: JE predominantly uses this guess when talking about younger people, especially boys (D and T names tend to crop up in readings concerning children). By looking at these number, you can’t tell that.

[T'ai Chi]

Hi Ersby,

Thanks for the corrections and additions. I didn't go back and double-check, etc., but here are the calculations assuming the counts, etc., are correct:

Total counts for all 4 transcripts
A: 2
C: 6
D: 2
J: 14
M: 4
R: 4

Expected frequencies
A: 3.3
C: 3.7
D: 3.8
J: 6.9
M: 5.2
R: 4.1

With this updated information, we fail to reject the hypothesis that JE uses letter frequencies according to the 1990 combined adjusted male and female Census Bureau data (p-value from a chi-square goodness of fit test on 5 degrees of freedom = .065). According to the observed counts, JE used J much more than expected, C more than what was expected, and A, D, M, and R less than what was expected.

[BillHoyt]

Expected frequencies
A: 3.3
C: 3.7
D: 3.8
J: 6.9
M: 5.2
R: 4.1

Unfortunately, the chi-square test results become suspect for cells with expected frequencies below 5. The results are also suspect for total chi-square values under 50.

[BNiles]

Must update my post for correctness.
Sorry

[Lurker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Unfortunately, the chi-square test results become suspect for cells with expected frequencies below 5. The results are also suspect for total chi-square values under 50.

Bill is correct here. From my memory, a cell with an expected frequency below 5 might be acceptable if the others were above 5. That all but two are below 5 bodes ill for the chi-square test's accuracy.

Lurker

[BNiles]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The table of the counts, per transcript and the total counts, is shown below:

(9/10/01, 9/6/02, 3/28/03, Observed total counts)
A: (0, 1, 0, 1)
C: (2, 0, 2, 4)
D: (0, 1, 0, 1)
J: (4, 2, 2, 8)
M: (0, 1, 1, 2)
R: (1, 1, 1, 3)

...

Expected counts = 80 guesses*1990 combined adjusted male and female Census Bureau data frequencies =
A: 5.18
C: 5.768
D: 5.936
J: 10.68
M: 8.030
R: 6.40

I'm not a statistician either, but IMO a larger sample size may have been more revealing. What I found interesting about this analysis wasn't the frequency of any one letter, but rather the size commonality of frequencies throughout. If we place the letters in order of the frequency sizes the lists are only off by two...ie:

Test_____Letter
8__________J
4__________C
3__________R
2__________M
1__________D
1__________A

Expect_____Letter
10.68_______J
8.030_______M
6.400_______R
5.936_______D
5.768_______C
5.180_______A

I think that with a larger sample size, we'll see more telling results.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lurker

Bill is correct here. From my memory, a cell with an expected frequency below 5 might be acceptable if the others were above 5.

Lurker

That is entirely correct, Lurker and Bill.

The point is that it seems better, in my opinion, to analyze a set of high frequency letters. Otherwise, you are subjectively choosing one high frequency letter for the analysis.

As we saw, J and C were used more than expected, but A, D, M, R were used less than expected. It is hard to decide how to interpret that in my opinion.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Lurker


Well, in "Blues Clues" there are characters; Mr. Pepper, Mrs. Salt and they have two children, Cinnamon and Paprika. Maybe John Edward is getting these characters in his visions? Is John Edward a big fan of "Blues Clues"?

LOL Lurker. You might be kidding, I don't know, but you are actually quite right in what you say here. Now it's true that John's little boy is only turning one this month, but soon enough he will be watching "Blues Clues", the "Wiggles", Dora the Explorer, Spongebob Squarepants, and Sesame Street etc. with him, and his personal frame of reference in kid's pop culture will expand greatly. :D

I love it when the dads get all involved with their kids. :) .....neo

[CFLarsen]

I think we are forgetting something. When JE guesses names, he shouldn't take from the whole pool of names. He should take from the most common names.

Which he does.

I looked at the 50 and 100 most common names, both male and female and took the initials only. Guess what?

==================
Top 100 Letters
==================
12_________J
10_________D
10_________M
9__________S
8__________A
8__________C
8__________R


==================
Top 200 Letters
==================
30_________J
18_________A
16_________R
14_________C
14_________S
13_________D
13_________M


==================
JE's guesses
==================
8__________J
4__________C
3__________R
2__________M
1__________D
1__________A


J is the most popular by far in both tallies. All 6 of JE's most common initials are among the top 7 most common initials among the 100 and 200 most popular names.

This approach makes perfectly sense, if we only look at the most popular names: After all, that's where the possibilities are greatest.

Don't tell me he isn't playing the odds here. I know, small numbers. But it stinks....

[Garrette]

Okay, I'm going to flop to the JE supporter side for a moment, for sake of argument. Actually, I think the point I'm about to bring up is valid, if not brought up already.

Claus, your numbers appear on the surface to be damning.

However, if JE uses initials according to the frequency of most used initials, mightn't it be because you would expect the spirits, the sitters, and their extended circle of acquaintances to follow the same distribution.

I don't know if I'm saying this well...

If the most common initials are JDMSACR, then why should we expect a bunch of spirits to come through with Zs?

Someone please destroy this argument for me...

[Ersby]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As we saw, J and C were used more than expected, but A, D, M, R were used less than expected. It is hard to decide how to interpret that in my opinion.

R was used exactly as expected (it's hard for JE to make 0.1 of a guess on a live 'phone-in). D is used less, but that's due to one of JE favoured tactics. A and M are barely one away from their expected frequency, so it could be that the number of guesses is simply too small.

Personally, I think Garratte's right. The guesses expected by a medium should be similar to the distribution of names in the general population. As should the guesses of a cold reader. (Both, of course, throwing in a few rarer guesses for show.)

I'm going to dig through some of the seminar notes on tvtalkshows, and do a name count with those. See what turns up.

[CFLarsen]

Garrette,

On the surface, you are right. :)

Look at what JE is doing: He is not gue...throwing out names, he is gue...throwing out initials. That widens the field considerably - he only has to pick among the top 6 or 7 letters to get a 65% chance of a hit if he takes the first 100 most common initials.

Consider if he gue...threw out names: Far less chance of a hit.

So, why doesn't he throw out names? He can hear full words, terms, he can get clear images, whatever. But not names.

That is what is damning: In everything else, he can get full words. Not names. There, he has to play the game of most common initials. He can do it, because his fans lap it up.

It's all a matter of inflating the hits and get away with it.

[Garrette]

Oh, I understand that, Claus. I have no doubt that JE is a performer and not a medium (sorry, neo and Clancie, but there ya have it).

But there is an analysis in progress. The purpose of the analysis is to demonstrate, somewhat scientifically, that JE is or isn't acting in accordance with a cold reader (or somesuch hypothesis or null hypothesis).

My point is that the analysis, insofar as it has been to date, can be of no use in disproving JE's mediumistic abilities.

I guess this was sort of my point in my initial questions many posts ago.

An analysis of the distribution of initials is insufficient without a concurrent analysis of their success.

If over the course of x tapings, y number of Js would be expected to result, by chance, in z hits, and in fact do result in z hits, then we've learned that JE doesn't operate above chance.

But if the same y number of Js result in significantly more than z hits, then there is evidence in support of his claims.

Simply proving that JE tosses out initials in a distribution equal to their distribution among the most popular names does nothing, meine meinung.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

He should take from the most common names.

Which he does.


I personally don't think that is in dispute. Afterall, common names here might be common names in the afterlife (assuming, of course, there is one).


Don't tell me he isn't playing the odds here.


Well, that is why we have to find statistical evidence, so we can say with good probability that he is (or isn't).

[CFLarsen]

Garrette,

I agree that we cannot look at just one aspect. We have to look at what is happening and try to find a rational explanation. Spin many theories, like Sagan said.

After all, cold reading is made up of many techniques and strategies..... :D

[Ersby]

Okay, I did the count, and scoring them in the same way as above, the hypothesis as presented here, suffers quite a knock.

Number of guesses concerning names: 77

Looking at those letters highlighted for analysis, we find:

(frequency____expected frequency)
A: 4_____4.9
C: 7_____5.5
D: 5_____5.7
J: 12_____10.2
M: 5_____7.7
R: 4______6.1

So no real change in tactic, except for a lesser use of R.

So, for completeness sake (though it won’t change much) here’s the total for LKL and seminar notes combined:

A: 6______8.3
C: 13_____9.3
D: 7______9.5
J: 26______17.2
M: 9______12.9
R: 8_______10.3

At first glance it looks like, of the top six, JE only overuses two: C and J. But, as I said, D often seems to be “held back” for readings in which children are mentioned, plus these figures don’t allow for the letter B (8 guesses over all transcripts), which as well as the genuine B names, can also be stretched to include William (Billy), Robert (Bobby) and Elizabeth (Betty).

JE does have a curious propensity to guess L names. His favourite seems to be “Lou, Louis, Louise”, and in fact in one reading after getting a hit with it he says it “never lets him down”. Make of that what you will!

And as I said earlier, the circumstances of him making the guess need to be known. I couldn’t say for sure, but while I was counting up, the C and M guesses seemed to be slanted towards females. Of course, JE’s audience is mostly females, so it’s a shaky hypothesis at best. I’ll take a closer look later perhaps, but time’s pressing so I’ll wrap up here.

[T'ai Chi]

I was wondering if we could think of anything else besides letter counts that we could analyze in a statistical manner.

One thing that I was interested in a while back was in counting the number of questions JE asks per reading. Not clarification questions like "Do you understand that?", or filler questions, but questions more directly relevant to the reading, like "Who is Betty?", etc., for example.

I was hypothesizing that perhaps JE needs to use a certain number of questions to have a "successful" reading.

Is JE's reading success dependent on the number of questions he asks? Should it be if he gets his messges from the spirits? -Or can he have a successful reading with very few or no questions?

Perhaps someone could go through each reading and score it a 1 for "success" and a 0 for "failure" (of course that could be very subjective). Someone could also go through and count the number of directly relevant questions JE asks (this is somewhat subjective too) for that reading. So for each reading, we'd have two numbers in the form:

(# of directly relevant questions, a 0 or 1).

I think then, at least for starters, one could see if the success group's average number of questions is significantly different from the failure groups' average number of questions.

I would think that the average of success group being significantly greater than the average of the failure group, could be considered evidence of cold reading.

This idea popped into my head a while back. I'm not entirely sure if this would be a worthwhile analysis though, or what it would really mean (it is late here too! :) ). The analysis could also be very sensitive to the raters' somewhat subjective ratings.

[T'ai Chi]

Perhaps we could also keep a continually updated list of JE's letter frequencies.

That is, we could have a list like:

JE's Letter Frequencies

A: p_A
B: p_B
C: p_C
D: p_D
.
.
.
Z: p_Z
(where p_A is the frequency for the letter A, for example)

One could simply (but laboriously) build this list from his past readings from a variety of sources. This list could simply be continually added to as JE does more readings.

We could simply use it as a descriptive tool to keep track of which letters JE uses. We could also use it as a long-run tool to use for inference to compare his frequencies to the Census Bureau frequencies sometime in the future when the lists gets built up.

We could do this with other mediums and see if their lists are similar or not.

Just another idea.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Garrette
.

However, if JE uses initials according to the frequency of most used initials, mightn't it be because you would expect the spirits, the sitters, and their extended circle of acquaintances to follow the same distribution.

Someone please destroy this argument for me...

Garrete:

I think you are misunderstanding the problem. We were looking at. We were interested to determine if JE is using common letters MORE than the census distribution. The line of thought was that if JE's letter distribution follows the census then it would NOT be an argument in favor of him cold reading. If he uses common letters disproportionately MORE than the census figures then the idea was that this would be evidence that he is cold reading. (Zeroing in on letters he KNOWS to be more common)

Now, the analysis seems suspect as counting methods play a large role in our data. Further, I am not sure the the basic logic of (IF A THEN B) is very good either.

But it was a fun exercise.

Lurker

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Lurker
Garrete:

I think you are misunderstanding the problem.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time...

Anyway, I understand your explanation. Thanks.

It is an interesting exercise, but I still question the value of it.

Seems we're doing something like: "Let's try something that, if it gives one result, will merely indicate the possibility of one explanation, but if it gives any other result, doesn't disprove anything at all."

Actually, I only question the value of it alone; if we now compared the initials guesses with the hits for the same initials, we'd be getting somewhere. I think. I wasn't a statistician yesterday, and I think I'm still not one today. But I've read a lot of Tai Chi's posts lately so maybe I am...

[BNiles]

I think that T'ai Chi is on to something here.

IMO, it has been demonstrated that JE uses the letter "J" well above the expected frequency. Take from that what you will. I also agree that this analysis only looks at one aspect of the overall process involved in cold reading. T'ai Chi, along with several others, has recommended other sampling that would yield telling data, but it requires more research than a casual poster is willing to compile.

Here's where the skeptic runs into trouble.

If a skeptic argues with only one analysis, absolute proof cannot be obtained = JE wins.
A skeptic won't attempt to do all analyses, because the outcome doesn't net enough profit to warrant the expansive workload involved = JE wins.

Maybe this thread should be on a paradox board ;)

What came first, the spirit or the medium? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lurker
If he uses common letters disproportionately MORE than the census figures then the idea was that this would be evidence that he is cold reading. (Zeroing in on letters he KNOWS to be more common)

Then there is evidence that he is cold reading. He chooses the letter J twice as often as the second letter. Among the 100 most common names (a pretty big chunk), the letter J is only slightly more common than D and M (and S).

I know, I know...small sample. However, we should keep an eye out for more readings.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Then there is evidence that he is cold reading. He chooses the letter J twice as often as the second letter. Among the 100 most common names (a pretty big chunk), the letter J is only slightly more common than D and M (and S).

I know, I know...small sample. However, we should keep an eye out for more readings.

But even this conclusion is somewhat weak in my opinion. If we assume JE is cold reading and using the census figures to his advantage we would be assuming;

1. He is knowledgable about census figures
2. That he is using a letter strategy having broken the census data into first letter components
3. He hears all names and letters with equal certainty. Perhaps he hears his own letter "J" for John better than others. Or perhaps he SEES it better as he has better symbology associated with the letter "J"
4. We would expect other letters with similar frequencies as "J" (Such as D and M as you mentioned above) to be used disproportionately high as well. Is this the case? Why would he just choose "J" to use more often?

Well, those are the only ones I thought of right now. You see how WE are basing our conclusion on certain assumptions that may or may not be valid?

Lurker

[Lurker]

And don't get me wrong, I agree it is evidence. But the QUALITY of the evidence is debateable.

Lurker

[CFLarsen]

Lurker,

I have no problems with this being not the strongest evidence - or a smoking gun, if you like. (Typical American phrase!!)

But I sure as heck don't see much evidence against it either - e.g. that JE really is talking to the dead. :)

Is it debatable? Sure! Always!

The thing to remember is, that every time we take a closer look at what JE and other necromancers do, it always speaks in favor of them being fakes.

We never find anything that opens up more possibilities that they are real.

It adds up. Devastatingly so. After so many years, after so many trials, after so many claims, after so many analyses....not a single piece of evidence. But several mountain ranges of contrary evidence.

Man, that should be enough to convince anybody. Sadly, it doesn't. Which is why we are here. Still here.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, why doesn't he throw out names? He can hear full words, terms, he can get clear images, whatever. But not names.

That is what is damning: In everything else, he can get full words. Not names. There, he has to play the game of most common initials. He can do it, because his fans lap it up.


Claus, what are all these full words and terms that you say JE can get?......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, what are all these full words and terms that you say JE can get?......neo

Are you being deliberately dense here? "Cigarettes in a coffin". "Feathers at Niagara". "Voula". All those Americana that leaves everything up to the sitter to interpret.

Why these, and not names? Why not even surnames? You explain that, neofight.

[Clancie]

neo,

Is Claus claiming that JE doesn't get names, that he only gets initials? rofl.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
neo,

Is Claus claiming that JE doesn't get names, that he only gets initials? rofl.

Clancie,

Honestly. If you are that interested in what I post, why don't you just take me off "ignore" and deal with it yourself? Why do you need stooges to deal with your own problems?

This insistence of referring to my posts in an off-handed manner is getting a wee bit tiresome. What do you possibly think you can gain from this? Respect? Don't make me laugh...

If you want to address my points, please do so in a straight-forward manner. What you are doing is simply cowardice. Be honest. Or, at least, try to be.

Why are you so scared of me? Am I really that threatening to you? Do you fear me that much, that you cannot face me?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But I sure as heck don't see much evidence against it either - e.g. that JE really is talking to the dead. :)

Is it debatable? Sure! Always!

The thing to remember is, that every time we take a closer look at what JE and other necromancers do, it always speaks in favor of them being fakes.


I agree that very little evidence points towards mediumship being valid and there is evidence that strongly points towards him being a fake.

So I am glad you agree that the "J" analysis is minor but still another brick in the wall against JE being a true medium.

Lurker

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lurker

So I am glad you agree that the "J" analysis is minor but still another brick in the wall against JE being a true medium.

Lurker

I have a hard time seeing how the J analysis shows anything at all.

Could someone explain exactly how it does?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I have a hard time seeing how the J analysis shows anything at all.

Could someone explain exactly how it does?

Whodini,

It refutes the null hypothesis. JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I have a hard time seeing how the J analysis shows anything at all.

Could someone explain exactly how it does?

OH NO...Not again! :roll:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

It refutes the null hypothesis. JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected.

Right, but JE used other high frequency letters less than what was expected. So if we did your analysis with those high frequency letters, we'd probably fail to reject the null hypothesis.

[BNiles]

Not exactly.

Of those he used less, I didn't see him use it that much less. But the letter "J" was different completely. Yes, it is the most common and expected to be of higher frequency, but JE over used it.

The other letters that were used less were only off by 2 - 3 points, but "J" was over used by 9 points.

[SFB]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lurker,

I have no problems with this being not the strongest evidence - or a smoking gun, if you like. (Typical American phrase!!)

But I sure as heck don't see much evidence against it either - e.g. that JE really is talking to the dead. :)

Is it debatable? Sure! Always!

The thing to remember is, that every time we take a closer look at what JE and other necromancers do, it always speaks in favor of them being fakes.

We never find anything that opens up more possibilities that they are real.

It adds up. Devastatingly so. After so many years, after so many trials, after so many claims, after so many analyses....not a single piece of evidence. But several mountain ranges of contrary evidence.

Man, that should be enough to convince anybody. Sadly, it doesn't. Which is why we are here. Still here.


And Twenty-Seven pages later............................................. .STILL HERE!!!!!!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

It refutes the null hypothesis. JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected.
Only when we used your counts. If we used mine or Kerberos, we don't reject the null hypothesis. I don't think that anyone else here has endorsed your counting method. And no, this is not an appeal to popularity. I am pointing out the very loose results of a very loose "peer review" of your methods.

[Lurker]

Again, it is a very minor point in my opinion. Bill, don't you find it odd that JE seems to use other common letters LESS than we would expect? It is like he did the work to find out from the census that "J" was the most common letter, then he tailored his methods to suit this by using "J" names or "J" sounds with more frequency and ignored other possible common letters. Odd.

Especially since "J" is not THAT much more frequent than its nearest competitors according to the census.

As Bill said, "JE guessed the most frequent forename initial far more frequently than would be expected." This is true, but any conclusions from this are hard to draw. The analysis is incomplete (and flawed).

Lurker

[T'ai Chi]

I guess what I am having a hard time with, is that I could see it both ways. If JE's letter use is in line with the Census Bureau frequencies, I could see that as being interpreted as cold reading.

On the other hand, if JE's letter use is way off from the Census Bureau frequencies, I could see that, too, as being interpreted as cold reading.

So... which is right??

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So... which is right??

John Edward is a cold reader. :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN


John Edward is a cold reader. :D

That's a good opinion, but I'd like to analyze the data scientifically.

Have you analyzed any data to come to your conclusion? If you show us the numbers, etc., we'd be most greatful.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's a good opinion, but I'd like to analyze the data scientifically.

Have you analyzed any data to come to your conclusion? If you show us the numbers, etc., we'd be most greatful.

How do you plan on doing that with an edited television show? Sorry, nothing scientific about that.

For those of you that haven't heard this before, whatever you saw on "Crossing Over" is absolutely, unequivocally, positively worthless. Get it?

Get this douche in a lab and we'll talk. Oh wait...

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

How do you plan on doing that with an edited television show? Sorry, nothing scientific about that.
Have you even been following the thread, TLN?

The analysis is being done using transcripts of readings from "Larry King Live". :rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
The analysis is being done using transcripts of readings from "Larry King Live". :rolleyes:

Have you been reading my posts Clancie? I was referring to "Crossing Over".

Yes, "Larry King Live" transcripts are an excellent source of data as they're all live. This must be why Edward bombs horribly every time he's on.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's a good opinion, but I'd like to analyze the data scientifically.

Have you analyzed any data to come to your conclusion? If you show us the numbers, etc., we'd be most greatful.

Not necessary to support TLN's conclusions, Woodini. Why is it you don't know that? Occam. Occam. No, woodini, I'm not clearing my throat.

[Iamme]

Someone could say, "Je is a fake! Prove to me he is real!" Someone else could counter, "Je is real! Prove that he is a fake"!

The burden of proof is to fall upon those who make the out of the ordinary, spectacular claim. Or so goes the reasoning. However, I don't think any of us want to fall into this viscous cycle of arguing.

We know THIS much: Crossing-Over is taped, editted.l We don't know anything about the gallery members. We know a lot of them are from his hometown of New York, We don't know who all is included in the disclaimers 'third parties'. We DO know that: Je has been plying his trade for about 18? years and he has gotten good at what he does....whatever it is that he is doing exactly. Otherwise, he wouldn't be on tv! He has been tested, along with a hand-picked group of other psychic-mediums by a Dr. Schwartz at the University of Arizona, and the picture painted of THAT one test sheds somewhat favorable light on his ability (although his tests have been deemd flawed by others, including James Randi himself)

If you really want to know the truth about someone, you have to investigate everything about the person. I don't think anybody has really taken the time to do this.

What if I told you that David Blaine really DOES levitate. What if I told you I saw him do it, in the flesh. What if I claimed that he wasn't turned to the side...that I saw him directly from the rear, levitate both feet off the ground. What would you say to me, other than, "Prooooove it!!!" What it really takes is some indepth research. Has anybody bothered to research David Blaine? Suuure, there was this CLAIM that David used that 'trick' where he turned sideways. Well, if he DID, then the giggly/spooked girls on the sidewalk who witnessed him levitate from the rear, were lying...or, the filming was dubbed. All this talk though is speculation...for and against David Blaine. Has anyone read an in depth report of him in say, the New York Times?


The botton line with these tv showmen, including John Edward, is that there is simply a lot of talk, and not enough truth seeking research.

Personally? I think the shows disclaimer pretty much buries him. I believe there could have been just as legally a protective disclaimer where it says that due to the nature of the subjectmatter, it is difficult to know if the claims made are real or not. And that John Edward, the show, the producers, or third parties cannot be held liable for interpretations made by those being read, or the families and friends thereof, nor of the viewing opublic. But noooooo. They go and say that the show is for entertainment purposes only, and that third parties have been heavily relied upon, and that it is not intended to be a factual statement in any way whatsoever.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Iamme
He has been tested, along with a hand-picked group of other psychic-mediums by a Dr. Schwartz at the University of Arizona, and the picture painted of THAT one test sheds somewhat favorable light on his ability (although his tests have been deemd flawed by others, including James Randi himself)



This "research" has been debunked. Schwartz made elementary mistakes in protocol that are damming. Schwartz is a fraud or a liar or both. Please, please point to something else, not this embarressing escapade.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN

How do you plan on doing that with an edited television show? Sorry, nothing scientific about that.


Ouch, don't let some hear that! I got taken to task for even suggesting that science ain't done on television!!


For those of you that haven't heard this before, whatever you saw on "Crossing Over" is absolutely, unequivocally, positively worthless. Get it?

Get this douche in a lab and we'll talk. Oh wait...

Sure, will you help finance getting JE in a lab? ;)

I'd rather analyze what I have access to. Since I can't get JE in a lab, it seems reasonable to analyze various transcripts. It certainly seems a more reasonable way to proceed than simply dismissing JE.

[Iamme]

Thanks Ed, for pointing that out. But you have to keep in mind, that this board is becoming ever more popular (I think) and that more and more people are checking us out here. They maybe never heard about the testing. If they want, they could do a Google search on this, if they are interested.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie
neo,

Is Claus claiming that JE doesn't get names, that he only gets initials? rofl.

Hi, Clancie. Who the hell knows what he is claiming. I'm done with his nonsense for a while. I can't take him seriously, and I am tired of repeating things that I've posted over and over again, both here and elsewhere. He's a bore. Capital "B". Now there's an initial for ya! lol ......neo

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's a good opinion, but I'd like to analyze the data scientifically.

Have you analyzed any data to come to your conclusion? If you show us the numbers, etc., we'd be most greatful.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...

It might be a moose? :D Let's do DNA testing on all moose to make sure they're not ducks. :wink8:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Iamme
Thanks Ed, for pointing that out. But you have to keep in mind, that this board is becoming ever more popular (I think) and that more and more people are checking us out here. They maybe never heard about the testing. If they want, they could do a Google search on this, if they are interested.

Indeed. People must do their own research instead of having others do their thinking for them. Anyone can do a search and see that these experiments are far from debunked and that the evidence in total clearly favours survival

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Indeed. People must do their own research instead of having others do their thinking for them. Anyone can do a search and see that these experiments are far from debunked and that the evidence in total clearly favours survival

BS, Luci. You don't know science, you don't know analysis, you are one of the most credulous people on this board. Schwartz has been debunked so throughly that I wonder about your reading skills.

Incidentially. To newcomers. Luci never answers questions, makes really silly claims, repeats, repeats repeats. Be warned. Look up Claus' questions to him about some of his wackey statements, all of which remain unanswered.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...

It might be a moose? :D

Poor argument in my opinion.

The bottom line is if you haven't done any scientific analysis, it is just your opinions and/or the opinions of your peer group.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Poor argument in my opinion.

The bottom line is if you haven't done any scientific analysis, it is just your opinions and/or the opinions of your peer group.
Whodini,

Occam's razor says otherwise, and quite decisively so. The research data must be supplied by the mediumship claimants, not by scientists. We have two simple alternative explanations when we see JE's pap on TV: he really can talk with the dead or its some sort of magic act. There is nothing JE or any medium has ever done that cannot be explained by cold-, warm- or hot-reading. There is, therefore, nothing that compels us to abandon all known science in favor of any hypothesis that introduces:

o souls
o soul transceivers inside some humans called mediums
o soul communications that are outside all known EMR spectra
o soul communications that disobey normal power laws

This argument is absolutely sound. It is incumbent upon believers to marshall evidence to the contrary.

[Ed]

Tom Paine said it:

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,--Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

I'd ask Luci or the other sockpuppet to responf specifically to the question Paine raises (in italics) but we know the do not. (I trust that newcomers are beginning to get a feel for their style)

Whoopsie, my bad. This is from The Age of Reason, Part 1. I strongly recommend that you at least peruse it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Poor argument in my opinion.

The bottom line is if you haven't done any scientific analysis, it is just your opinions and/or the opinions of your peer group.

Nonsense. Are you suggesting that any claim, about anything, has to be tested? You are a silly english type.

[SteveGrenard]

I didn't know ED was a devotee of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine (1737-1809) The Most Valuable Englishman Ever

"If this title is correct, then why has hardly any English person ever heard of him? The answer to this question is incredibly simple, because 200 years ago this great free-thinking philosopher had the courage to tell the truth in a country that was run by a handful of political and religious tyrants who were making sure the masses were kept in ignorance."(M Roll)

Here are some favorite Paine websites for anyone interested in more on this forgotten philosopher:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/paine.html

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/recommended/video/tp_vid-en.html

www.thomaspaine.org

"The first goal for this site is to become the largest single archive of works on or about Thomas Paine on the World Wide Web. The second stage will see it become the most comprehensive ie. it will ultimately include everything that Paine is known to have written."

[Ed]

We should say that he is considered a founding father of the US. A bit nutsie but a good mind.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Occam's razor says otherwise, and quite decisively so.


Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law. All Occam's Razor says is that if two theories, A and B, with number of assumptions, n and m, respectively, both explain event E equally well, it is a good idea to stick with theory A, only if n is less than m. Occam's Razor doesn't say which theory is correct, only that it is sensible to stick with theory A because it has less assumptions.


We have two simple alternative explanations when we see JE's pap on TV: he really can talk with the dead or its some sort of magic act.


I agree. That is why we have to scientifically analyze the data, to come to one of those conclusions.


There is, therefore, nothing that compels us to abandon all known science in favor of any hypothesis that introduces:

o souls
o soul transceivers inside some humans called mediums
o soul communications that are outside all known EMR spectra
o soul communications that disobey normal power laws

This argument is absolutely sound. It is incumbent upon believers to marshall evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I agree. At the same time, us non-believers must scientifically analyze the data, not just list assumptions and say that JE is cold reading because of Occam's Razor.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed

Nonsense. Are you suggesting that any claim, about anything, has to be tested?


If it is able to be tested, why not?


You are a silly english type.

Again with the personalities..

[Loki]

Lurker,

It is like he did the work to find out from the census that "J" was the most common letter, then he tailored his methods to suit this by using "J" names or "J" sounds with more frequency and ignored other possible common letters. Odd.

I don't think it's necessary to assume that JE has been doing statistical analysis of Census data to improve his success rate. It seems entirely possible to me that 18 years of "work experience" have simply given him a solid basis of "what works and what doesn't" in the name guessing game.

I still want to know why the dead spirit, so desparately keen to make themselves known to the sitter, decides to send through the name/initial of someone else! Surely, sending either the sitter or spirit's name would make far more sense? Apparently in the spirit world when a spirit meets another (new) spirit they introduce themselves as "Hi, nice to me you. I'm someone related to a person named Bob."

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


If it is able to be tested, why not?

[/B]

Because we have a finite amount of resources available to us?

Should every scientist, magician, and skeptic give up their 'day jobs' and go around testing every person who makes a paranormal claim? (There are a lot of them.)
Who will compel them to do this if the don't want to?

If you went around testing every proven assumption about the world (gravity, electricity, biology, sociology, mechanics, physics, etc, etc, etc...)before heading out to start your day, you'd never have the time to get anything done.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
Apparently in the spirit world when a spirit meets another (new) spirit they introduce themselves as "Hi, nice to me you. I'm someone related to a person named Bob."

Yeah, and it's a good thing that all spirits immediately acquire a perfect command of English, too! As we have seen with psychic (sometime) medium, Brian Hurst, all dead people start speaking English - flawlessly.

Can you imagine the problems JE would be in, if dead people were speaking with an accent? Remember this exchange from the movie "French Kiss", with Meg Ryan as Kate and Kevin Kline as Luc?

Kate: So, who is this guy?
Luc: Bob.
Kate: Bub?
Luc: No, no, Bob. You know, like, uh, Bob Dylan?
Kate: Oh, Bob!
Luc: Oui, Bahb.

I cannot begin to imagine the trouble JE would have....! :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Because we have a finite amount of resources available to us?


But these are resources that scientists have, not the extremely limited resources of you and I.


Should every scientist, magician, and skeptic give up their 'day jobs' and go around testing every person who makes a paranormal claim?


No, I don't think so, but scientists should test things scientifically, as they are doing with homeopathy and other more questionable medicines.


If you went around testing every proven assumption about the world (gravity, electricity, biology, sociology, mechanics, physics, etc, etc, etc...)before heading out to start your day, you'd never have the time to get anything done.

I agree. One person obviously can't test everything, but many people can.

What I was talking about is that someone said that 'if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then ...' etc.. What I am saying is that if you haven't done any scientific analysis, it is just your opinions and/or the opinions of your peer group.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If it is able to be tested, why not?[/B]
Whodini,

Surely you jest. There are an infinite number of hypotheses for any given phenomenon. There are an infinite number of claimed phenomena. On the face of it, this is a preposterous proposition.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Surely you jest.


No, and don't call me Shirley. ;)


There are an infinite number of hypotheses for any given phenomenon.


Prove it. Pick one phenomenon and then list the hypotheses. I think you are exagerating here.


There are an infinite number of claimed phenomena.


Prove it. List the "claimed phenomena". I think you are exagerating here.


On the face of it, this is a preposterous proposition.

On the face of it, that is your opinion. I'm not talking about one ordinary person testing all claims in the world. I'm talking about the science community, who has access to funds and resources, etc., testing reasonable claims. Yes, there are many reasonable claims, but hey, that is their job now isn't it.

I guess I'll answer those statistics questions...

[Walter Wayne]

Bill: And don't forget to number them so that we can see there are indeed an infinite number? :p :)

T'ai Chi: Anyways, as for testable, many paranormal claims are not "pinned down". Mediums don't make many claims about what they can and can't do, and don't like to give even a general success rate. Doing so would make it a simple matter to discredit them (or proove them).

We can't test that much just due to funds. Randi appears to have many friends, and often has help from stats guys and others who insure his tests are not likely to be passed by chance. Do we expect these guys to give out their services for free all the time so anyone can do test? There are limited scientists and limited funds. It takes a good deal of resources to set up and monitor double blind tests.

The test we discussed here, we used a p=0.05. Could you imagine how often we would hear about new particles being discovered if 1 in 20 experiments performed in particle accelerators found a "new particle". Science very small p values so they can be certain, and this adds even larger sample sizes and/or tighter controls, which also increase experiment cost.

There simply is no way to test all the ideas, a lot of half-descent proposals get tossed out in favour of those which have better potential to bear fruit. If one begins to accept the half-descent proposals and the far-fetched ones ... well budgets can't handle it.

Walt

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne

The test we discussed here, we used a p=0.05. Could you imagine how often we would hear about new particles being discovered if 1 in 20 experiments performed in particle accelerators found a "new particle". Science [needs?] very small p values so they can be certain,


Well, yeah. I mean, .05 is a just a dogmatic cutoff decided upon first by Fisher and then simply accepted by the statistical community, the medical community, the physics community, and the entire scientific community for the most part. (probably because of Fisher's wisdom and authority and because the Z-value corresponding to .05 is near 2, so this makes off-the-cuff calculations easier)

Clearly, and this is something the Journal of Scientific Exploration and parasychological journal articles have acknowledged and explored, we have have a smaller alpha level in the "paranormal" field.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Well, yeah. I mean, .05 is a just a dogmatic cutoff decided upon first by Fisher and then simply accepted by the statistical community, the medical community, the physics community, and the entire scientific community for the most part. (probably because of Fisher's wisdom and authority and because the Z-value corresponding to .05 is near 2, so this makes off-the-cuff calculations easier)

Clearly, and this is something the Journal of Scientific Exploration and parasychological journal articles have acknowledged and explored, we have have a smaller alpha level in the "paranormal" field. [/B]Most of the scientific community dumped .05 a while ago. IIRC, to disclose a change in standard theory by adding a new particle is now around 6 standard deviations. My impression is some sciences in which it is more difficult to define things in such a hard manner as physics still sometimes accept alpha of 0.05, but for the most part that value remains mainly in textbooks and as the "layman's" myth (though I may be worng (Edit: or even wrong) about that).

Walt

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Most of the scientific community dumped .05 a while ago. IIRC, to disclose a change in standard theory by adding a new particle is now around 6 standard deviations. My impression is some sciences in which it is more difficult to define things in such a hard manner as physics still sometimes accept alpha of 0.05, but for the most part that value remains mainly in textbooks and as the "layman's" myth (though I may be worng (Edit: or even wrong) about that).

Walt

I go here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ and enter in, without quotes, "p<.05", and get over 20,000 returns.

For physicists to change a standard theory, they might set alpha lower than .05, but for general evidence to be provided, an alpha of .05 is still quite common I believe.