FREE TAPATALK APP

Mike D. · 16th August 2003, 03:10 PM

There seems to be endless discussion of John Edward and his mediumship on this forum. One would think that after all this discussion, the debate would have moved toward some sort of conclusion, or at least toward an identification of what the points of disagreement are and a sense of whether or not they can be resolved.

1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent.

2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have *any* points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate?

3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate.

4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached?

5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point?

Mike D. · 16th August 2003, 03:14 PM

In other words, where do things now stand with this debate?

Pyrrho · 16th August 2003, 04:15 PM

Given that the debate has largely collapsed into a flame war...

arcticpenguin · 16th August 2003, 04:33 PM

Probably you will get different views on this from different participants.

I only took part briefly, but to me it seemed that evidence that should have been show-stopping just rolled off the believers like water off a duck's back.

dharlow · 16th August 2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.
There seems to be endless discussion of John Edward and his mediumship on this forum. One would think that after all this discussion, the debate would have moved toward some sort of conclusion, or at least toward an identification of what the points of disagreement are and a sense of whether or not they can be resolved.

1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent.

2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have *any* points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate?

3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate.

4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached?

5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point?

Thanks for bringing this up Mike. Very good questions.

For my own part, I find that debates in which no headway is made indicate a problem of the subject matter being debated. One side is arguing using one set of data, while the other uses a different set of data to support their position. Hence, there is no common data base over which to argue, and little is resolved. Skeptics of JE point out the problems of editing, certain readings that resemble cold reading, potential for hot reading on occasion, etc... Believers in JE seem to use as their source of argument certain readings that they consider to be beyond cold reading, and the overall success of his performance. I come down strongly on the skeptic side with regard to this man. Television has opened up a wealth of possibilities with regards to conjuring, possibilities not available to such sham "mediums" 60 or 70 years ago. The problem of editing is indeed significant. There are no controls against hot reading. Every time I have watched JE, he has been in complete control of the situation. The sitters don't ask JE questions about their deceased....he tells them. He has total control over the information provided, which is exactly how a conjurer operates. Who are these people anyway? Could they be plants in the audience for when JE's cold reading fails? Are they people who desperately want to be on television, and thus verifiy Edward's erroneous statements so they can be featured on national television?

There has not been a competent study performed on JE which excludes these possibilities. In addition, I need hardly point out the immense difficulties of determining whether the communications are indeed coming from the deceased. If I were convinced of telepathy, which I am not, I would not in any way see any evidence that excludes telepathy as the source of JE's success. Hence, those who are convinced that JE is communicating with the dead are doing so on a basis of faith...nothing more.

I might ask, though, what the real issue of debate is here. Is it a question of whether JE can receive information without the use of currently known senses, or is it that anyone, at anytime, has shown that they can do this? I believe that most people here are more interested in the latter question. I certainly am myself. If this does so apply to others, than we should expand our inquiry beyond this insignifcant man and look to the actual research of specialized subjects. My position on psychic abilities, when I started, was that it was important to examine what proponents (serious researchers) consider to be their best evidence. While one will get a variety of answers to such a question of what constitutes the "best" evidence, I think that there are certain people with whom research has been conducted that most knowledgable proponents would consider significant. Such people, to me, would include D.D. Home[P/M], Eusapia Palladino[P], Leonora Piper[M], Osborne Leonard[M], Stefan Ossowiecki[M], and Rudi Schneider[P] ('M' denotes mental mediumship, 'P' denotes physical mediumship). If one is interested in some real puzzles, I would advise doing some serious research on one or several of these people. At least then we could have a common database over which to argue, and perhaps progress of some form could be made.

jim_scotti · 16th August 2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.
There seems to be endless discussion of John Edward and his mediumship on this forum. One would think that after all this discussion, the debate would have moved toward some sort of conclusion, or at least toward an identification of what the points of disagreement are and a sense of whether or not they can be resolved.

I think the conclusion is obvious - no amount of evidence will sway the true believers from their unwavering support for JE.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.

1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent.

There are two camps in this "debate". There are the true believers and then there are the critical thinkers. Debate with true believers is about as effective as debate with a brick wall - the sound echos off the wall without having any affect on the wall. Obvious cold reading is ignored by the TBs since they have been suckered by those techniques since the first time they saw JE or one of his ilk.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.

2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have *any* points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate?

Skeptics point out obvious fraud, TBs hem and haw and call the skeptics unwavering in their lack of belief without providing anything other than circumstantial evidence for their claims.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.

3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate.

Nothing will bring any consensus between the TBs and the rest of us - no amount of evidence short of JE himself coming clean on the fraud will make the TBs realize the fraudulent techniques used by JE.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.

4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached?

As long as swindlers are out there, critical thinkers and skeptics will stand up to their fraud and the swindlers TBs are a dime a dozen and will always keep the debate alive.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.

5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point?

JE will vanish and the next sheister will come along to take his place.....

Jim.

T'ai Chi · 16th August 2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike D.

1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent.

2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have *any* points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate?

3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate.

4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached?

5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point?

No. Some skeptics (read: "some cynics") are still blabbering about Uri Geller!

It will probably take them 50 years to get over Geller, and another 100 to get over Edward, and that is being extremely generous and conservative.

If you think any medium is a fraud, then by all means, sue and bring them to justice. There are law enforcers that can take care of that.

Yahweh · 16th August 2003, 10:04 PM

I rarely participate any of JE threads. They are of no interest to me. But I still like to watch them, good entertainment.

(BEEP BEEP BEEP)
Have to go, the popcorn is done.

CFLarsen · 16th August 2003, 10:49 PM

As a participant in the "JE-Saga", spanning about two years now, I disagree that the debate is going nowhere. Quite contrary, we can point to very important issues that have been resolved:

Before, JE was claimed to be highly accurate on a consistent level.
It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that this evidence, in the form of first, second and third hand anecdotes, transcripts, videotapes etc., show that JE is not accurate at all. He is, in fact, pretty lousy. He is, however, pretty lousy on a consistent level.
Before, "Crossing Over" was claimed to be an accurate depiction of what happens live.
It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that the show is edited, sometimes heavily, for both time and content.
Before, memory was considered quite reliable as a tool of investigation.
It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that memory is flawed and malleable, especially with those who believe in JE the strongest.
Before, it was claimed that no incidents of trickery had ever been discovered.
It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that JE has been caught using trickery: The shows are edited to make him look better, and he has been caught using gleaned information in readings.
Before, it was claimed that JE had nothing to hide.
It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that JE runs a very tight ship: He does not listen to critics, and he encourages his fans not to listen either. He refuses independent researchers to investigate what he is doing. He really is a control-freak (he says this himself).
Before, it was claimed the JE had undergone scientific testing.
It is now obvious (for anyone with an even cursory understanding of science) that the testing was designed so JE and the other mediums would succeed.
Before, JE was described as very consistent in what he is doing.
It is now obvious (for anyone who can understand the written word) that JE is highly inconsistent in his explanations.
Before, JE-believers were often claimed to be open-minded.
It is now obvious (for anyone but these people) that very few have changed their minds. As the evidence against JE has been piling up, the JE-believers have grown more and more fanatic in their defense of JE.
Before, we basically had word-against-word.
By the tenacious digging of both skeptics and believers, there now exists a quite impressive body of evidence that point to only one conclusion: That JE is not talking to dead people. He is using a wide variety of tricks, depending on the situation, but still has to rely heavily on editing and spin-doctoring from eager fans to maintain the illusion that he is good at speaking with dead people.

Will the debate end here? No. It will go on and on and on. However, as time has progressed, the arguments from believers have become more and more shrill, with fewer and fewer claims of evidence, and more and more appeals to emotion. The longer time passes, the more thin the arguments in favor of JE will become. Very few people are convinced today that the earth is flat. We must track down evidence and making sure it is available to everyone interested. This will not sway the hard-core believers, that is true. But it might very likely be noticed by those, who are not really convinced yet.

Those are the ones we should try and reach. The others are, unfortunately, lost. It may be a long haul, but it is most definitely worth it.

Dragon · 16th August 2003, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

No. Some skeptics (read: "some cynics") are still blabbering about Uri Geller!

It will probably take them 50 years to get over Geller, and another 100 to get over Edward, and that is being extremely generous and conservative.

If you think any medium is a fraud, then by all means, sue and bring them to justice. There are law enforcers that can take care of that.

Well, Geller was prosecuted and convicted for breach of contract in his native Israel in 1971 - he's obviously been more careful since ...

Edward's show is "for entertainment purposes only" so you might as well try to sue David Copperfield for not really making the Statue of Liberty dissapear.

T'ai Chi · 17th August 2003, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragon

Well, Geller was prosecuted and convicted for breach of contract in his native Israel in 1971 - he's obviously been more careful since ...

Edward's show is "for entertainment purposes only" so you might as well try to sue David Copperfield for not really making the Statue of Liberty dissapear.

Yes exactly, for entertainment purposes only. Big grown ups can make their own choices about what entertainment they choose to watch, and how they interpret it.

Dragon · 17th August 2003, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Yes exactly, for entertainment purposes only. Big grown ups can make their own choices about what entertainment they choose to watch, and how they interpret it.

Agreed.

CFLarsen · 17th August 2003, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes exactly, for entertainment purposes only. Big grown ups can make their own choices about what entertainment they choose to watch, and how they interpret it.

Only if they are aware of the full set of facts. Keep people in ignorance, and you can control them.

That's what dictators and con-men rely on.

Clancie · 17th August 2003, 09:47 AM

Interesting thread, Mike. Particularly as I think I just burned out.

After going through renata's transcripts the last couple of days (plus the complete LKL ones, ersby's analysis, and a few others' comments--totaling over 300 hard copy pages)--I thought I had something constructive to say about JE on LKL...the good...the bad...the ugly...the positive.

Then I read Claus's post above (and one or two other people's on this and another thread), and thought..."What for?" I mean, I think I have thoughts and insights to contribute on this topic, but in reality, unless these "thoughts and insights" amount to "JE's bogus, I'm convinced"...seriously, what's the point?

There are just too many people here who are convinced that the one and only worthwhile conclusion to reach is that he's a fake, and that no other comments amount to anything but rationalization and denial. They may be right, but they may not be. However, it is predictable that the idea "they may not be" will never have more than a miniscule amount of support or interest here.

Claus's post was predictable, but I found it depressing and for some reason I don't feel like sharing any thoughts about JE at the moment. There wasn't anything so wrong about the post, it wasn't even (for a change) involving me personally.

It just underscored that--whatever a "believer" argues here--three things will happen....the criticisms will be accepted as obvious anyway (and credit taken by skeptics that an effective job has been done and a beliver is finally "beginning to see the light")...the positive JE statements will be ridiculed by some and will definitely lead to many exhaustive follow up questions...and that I'll see anything I write misrepresented, twisted, and added to some inumerable "list of questions for Clancie", so I can be badgered with them in the future.

Just feeling a bit of burn out today contemplating it. I mean, you're right, Mike. "What's the point?" Well, maybe it will pass...we'll see.

And, dharlow, you are quite an optimist. Any time other mediums' work has been brought up here, very few skeptics seem interested in learning more about it at all. Personally, I think most don't want to do the research...the reading...give the thought to...anything but the most obvious and easy critiques (i.e. JE, Sylvia, and cold/warm/hot reading).

CFLarsen · 17th August 2003, 10:23 AM

Clancie,

I have a little trouble understanding how you can walk away from this. The point of posting your analysis is to provide your side of this. You have finished the analysis, I see. So let's hear what you came up with. We are most interested. There have been quite a number of skeptics chiming in. We very much want to hear what believers have to say.

Keep an open mind, right?

You are, however, wrong about what might happen. There is, after all, a fourth possibiliy - but only for those with an open mind:

It is actually possible that you will finally begin to make an impression here. Even though you are "up" against many more skeptics that you have been used to so far, it shouldn't deter you from stating your case.

Do you feel a little overwhelmed here, defending your viewpoint? I know how you feel, Clancie. Because I've been there. At Pam's board, at Steve's board and at TVTalkshows. Yeah, it gets lonely. I didn't back down then. You know that. And I don't see any reason why you should.

Quite frankly, I really don't see what you have to fear from me or anybody else, for that matter. If you have the conviction of your beliefs, you should definitely stand by them. Especially if you think you can argue rationally for them. That is what you are trying to do, isn't it?

Yup, this is a tough 'hood. If you think you can argue your viewpoints rationally, go ahead. If you think your beliefs cannot stand the scrutiny of rationality, then you should back down. Just don't ever - ever - refer to this as you being bullied or anything like that. You should accept defeat and, in the future, only refer to yourself as a believer.

Which is fine - nobody can ever point fingers at you for merely believing. It becomes quite another scenario if you claim evidence, yet have none.

But if you do? Think of the consequences. One might refer to laughed-at geniuses of the past. It seems to be a very popular practice in woo-woo circles, so why not invoke that image now?

On July, 25th, you said that you "very much" wanted to comment on renata's thread, as well as a couple more. Today, 23 days after, you say you have finished - but are backing down.

On August, 10th, you were less than one day away from finishing. That was a week ago. During that week, you have posted quite frequently, so I am not entirely convinced that you are suffering from burn-out. You seem to be strong enough to open new threads, also on the subject of JE. So you cannot possible have "JE-fatigue", or any other kind.

It is very tempting to believe that you realized that you were not able to come up with anything even vaguely convincing. The data does not give an unequivocal answer, so I will refrain from saying that this is, indeed, the case.

But it's close. Damned close, Clancie.

Nevertheless, get back when you feel like it. I will, however, question your state of depression, should you start posting in other threads. That will only make me think that you are making this whole thing up.

Oh, ye of little faith.

16th August 2003, 03:10 PM	#1
Mike D. Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 321	The endless John Edward debate There seems to be endless discussion of John Edward and his mediumship on this forum. One would think that after all this discussion, the debate would have moved toward some sort of conclusion, or at least toward an identification of what the points of disagreement are and a sense of whether or not they can be resolved. 1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent. 2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have any points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate? 3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate. 4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached? 5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point?
Mike D. Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 321

16th August 2003, 03:14 PM	#2
Mike D. Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 321	In other words, where do things now stand with this debate?
Mike D. Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 321

16th August 2003, 04:15 PM	#3
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	Given that the debate has largely collapsed into a flame war...
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678

16th August 2003, 04:33 PM	#4
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	Probably you will get different views on this from different participants. I only took part briefly, but to me it seemed that evidence that should have been show-stopping just rolled off the believers like water off a duck's back.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

16th August 2003, 07:52 PM	#5
dharlow Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Endicott Posts: 186	Re: The endless John Edward debate Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. There seems to be endless discussion of John Edward and his mediumship on this forum. One would think that after all this discussion, the debate would have moved toward some sort of conclusion, or at least toward an identification of what the points of disagreement are and a sense of whether or not they can be resolved. 1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent. 2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have any points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate? 3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate. 4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached? 5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point? Thanks for bringing this up Mike. Very good questions. For my own part, I find that debates in which no headway is made indicate a problem of the subject matter being debated. One side is arguing using one set of data, while the other uses a different set of data to support their position. Hence, there is no common data base over which to argue, and little is resolved. Skeptics of JE point out the problems of editing, certain readings that resemble cold reading, potential for hot reading on occasion, etc... Believers in JE seem to use as their source of argument certain readings that they consider to be beyond cold reading, and the overall success of his performance. I come down strongly on the skeptic side with regard to this man. Television has opened up a wealth of possibilities with regards to conjuring, possibilities not available to such sham "mediums" 60 or 70 years ago. The problem of editing is indeed significant. There are no controls against hot reading. Every time I have watched JE, he has been in complete control of the situation. The sitters don't ask JE questions about their deceased....he tells them. He has total control over the information provided, which is exactly how a conjurer operates. Who are these people anyway? Could they be plants in the audience for when JE's cold reading fails? Are they people who desperately want to be on television, and thus verifiy Edward's erroneous statements so they can be featured on national television? There has not been a competent study performed on JE which excludes these possibilities. In addition, I need hardly point out the immense difficulties of determining whether the communications are indeed coming from the deceased. If I were convinced of telepathy, which I am not, I would not in any way see any evidence that excludes telepathy as the source of JE's success. Hence, those who are convinced that JE is communicating with the dead are doing so on a basis of faith...nothing more. I might ask, though, what the real issue of debate is here. Is it a question of whether JE can receive information without the use of currently known senses, or is it that anyone, at anytime, has shown that they can do this? I believe that most people here are more interested in the latter question. I certainly am myself. If this does so apply to others, than we should expand our inquiry beyond this insignifcant man and look to the actual research of specialized subjects. My position on psychic abilities, when I started, was that it was important to examine what proponents (serious researchers) consider to be their best evidence. While one will get a variety of answers to such a question of what constitutes the "best" evidence, I think that there are certain people with whom research has been conducted that most knowledgable proponents would consider significant. Such people, to me, would include D.D. Home[P/M], Eusapia Palladino[P], Leonora Piper[M], Osborne Leonard[M], Stefan Ossowiecki[M], and Rudi Schneider[P] ('M' denotes mental mediumship, 'P' denotes physical mediumship). If one is interested in some real puzzles, I would advise doing some serious research on one or several of these people. At least then we could have a common database over which to argue, and perhaps progress of some form could be made.
	__________________ "When you have heard all the evidence give your decision, but prejudge nothing." - Phillipics of Demosthenes

16th August 2003, 08:10 PM	#6
jim_scotti Student Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 48	Re: The endless John Edward debate Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. There seems to be endless discussion of John Edward and his mediumship on this forum. One would think that after all this discussion, the debate would have moved toward some sort of conclusion, or at least toward an identification of what the points of disagreement are and a sense of whether or not they can be resolved. I think the conclusion is obvious - no amount of evidence will sway the true believers from their unwavering support for JE. Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. 1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent. There are two camps in this "debate". There are the true believers and then there are the critical thinkers. Debate with true believers is about as effective as debate with a brick wall - the sound echos off the wall without having any affect on the wall. Obvious cold reading is ignored by the TBs since they have been suckered by those techniques since the first time they saw JE or one of his ilk. Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. 2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have any points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate? Skeptics point out obvious fraud, TBs hem and haw and call the skeptics unwavering in their lack of belief without providing anything other than circumstantial evidence for their claims. Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. 3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate. Nothing will bring any consensus between the TBs and the rest of us - no amount of evidence short of JE himself coming clean on the fraud will make the TBs realize the fraudulent techniques used by JE. Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. 4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached? As long as swindlers are out there, critical thinkers and skeptics will stand up to their fraud and the swindlers TBs are a dime a dozen and will always keep the debate alive. Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. 5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point? JE will vanish and the next sheister will come along to take his place..... Jim.
jim_scotti Student Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 48

16th August 2003, 09:29 PM	#7
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Re: The endless John Edward debate Quote: Originally posted by Mike D. 1. If, after all this time, there is no consensus as to the validity of JE's claimed abilities, why is this the case, since presumably most debaters here are reasonably intelligent. 2. What are the remaining points of disagreement about JE's alleged abilities, and have any points of disagreement thus far been resolved to the satisfaction of all (or most) of the participants in the debate? 3. What is still needed to bring the debate to the point of general consensus, and thus conclude the debate. 4. Will the debaters someday get bored with discussing JE and give up the debate, even if no conclusion has been reached? 5. Will the debate continue until JE is no longer prominent in the world of mediumship, or do the debaters expect to reach a consensus before that point? No. Some skeptics (read: "some cynics") are still blabbering about Uri Geller! It will probably take them 50 years to get over Geller, and another 100 to get over Edward, and that is being extremely generous and conservative. If you think any medium is a fraud, then by all means, sue and bring them to justice. There are law enforcers that can take care of that.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

16th August 2003, 10:04 PM	#8
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	I rarely participate any of JE threads. They are of no interest to me. But I still like to watch them, good entertainment. (BEEP BEEP BEEP) Have to go, the popcorn is done.
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029

16th August 2003, 10:49 PM	#9
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	As a participant in the "JE-Saga", spanning about two years now, I disagree that the debate is going nowhere. Quite contrary, we can point to very important issues that have been resolved: Before, JE was claimed to be highly accurate on a consistent level. It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that this evidence, in the form of first, second and third hand anecdotes, transcripts, videotapes etc., show that JE is not accurate at all. He is, in fact, pretty lousy. He is, however, pretty lousy on a consistent level. Before, "Crossing Over" was claimed to be an accurate depiction of what happens live. It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that the show is edited, sometimes heavily, for both time and content. Before, memory was considered quite reliable as a tool of investigation. It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that memory is flawed and malleable, especially with those who believe in JE the strongest. Before, it was claimed that no incidents of trickery had ever been discovered. It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that JE has been caught using trickery: The shows are edited to make him look better, and he has been caught using gleaned information in readings. Before, it was claimed that JE had nothing to hide. It is now obvious (for anyone with a clear mind) that JE runs a very tight ship: He does not listen to critics, and he encourages his fans not to listen either. He refuses independent researchers to investigate what he is doing. He really is a control-freak (he says this himself). Before, it was claimed the JE had undergone scientific testing. It is now obvious (for anyone with an even cursory understanding of science) that the testing was designed so JE and the other mediums would succeed. Before, JE was described as very consistent in what he is doing. It is now obvious (for anyone who can understand the written word) that JE is highly inconsistent in his explanations. Before, JE-believers were often claimed to be open-minded. It is now obvious (for anyone but these people) that very few have changed their minds. As the evidence against JE has been piling up, the JE-believers have grown more and more fanatic in their defense of JE. Before, we basically had word-against-word. By the tenacious digging of both skeptics and believers, there now exists a quite impressive body of evidence that point to only one conclusion: That JE is not talking to dead people. He is using a wide variety of tricks, depending on the situation, but still has to rely heavily on editing and spin-doctoring from eager fans to maintain the illusion that he is good at speaking with dead people. Will the debate end here? No. It will go on and on and on. However, as time has progressed, the arguments from believers have become more and more shrill, with fewer and fewer claims of evidence, and more and more appeals to emotion. The longer time passes, the more thin the arguments in favor of JE will become. Very few people are convinced today that the earth is flat. We must track down evidence and making sure it is available to everyone interested. This will not sway the hard-core believers, that is true. But it might very likely be noticed by those, who are not really convinced yet. Those are the ones we should try and reach. The others are, unfortunately, lost. It may be a long haul, but it is most definitely worth it.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

16th August 2003, 10:57 PM	#10
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,403	Re: Re: The endless John Edward debate Quote: Originally posted by T'ai Chi No. Some skeptics (read: "some cynics") are still blabbering about Uri Geller! It will probably take them 50 years to get over Geller, and another 100 to get over Edward, and that is being extremely generous and conservative. If you think any medium is a fraud, then by all means, sue and bring them to justice. There are law enforcers that can take care of that. Well, Geller was prosecuted and convicted for breach of contract in his native Israel in 1971 - he's obviously been more careful since ... Edward's show is "for entertainment purposes only" so you might as well try to sue David Copperfield for not really making the Statue of Liberty dissapear.
	__________________ "We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth." Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason

17th August 2003, 12:28 AM	#11
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Re: Re: Re: The endless John Edward debate Quote: Originally posted by Dragon Well, Geller was prosecuted and convicted for breach of contract in his native Israel in 1971 - he's obviously been more careful since ... Edward's show is "for entertainment purposes only" so you might as well try to sue David Copperfield for not really making the Statue of Liberty dissapear. Yes exactly, for entertainment purposes only. Big grown ups can make their own choices about what entertainment they choose to watch, and how they interpret it.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

17th August 2003, 12:31 AM	#12
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,403	Re: Re: Re: Re: The endless John Edward debate Quote: Originally posted by T'ai Chi Yes exactly, for entertainment purposes only. Big grown ups can make their own choices about what entertainment they choose to watch, and how they interpret it. Agreed.
	__________________ "We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth." Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason

17th August 2003, 09:47 AM	#14
Clancie Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,040	Interesting thread, Mike. Particularly as I think I just burned out. After going through renata's transcripts the last couple of days (plus the complete LKL ones, ersby's analysis, and a few others' comments--totaling over 300 hard copy pages)--I thought I had something constructive to say about JE on LKL...the good...the bad...the ugly...the positive. Then I read Claus's post above (and one or two other people's on this and another thread), and thought..."What for?" I mean, I think I have thoughts and insights to contribute on this topic, but in reality, unless these "thoughts and insights" amount to "JE's bogus, I'm convinced"...seriously, what's the point? There are just too many people here who are convinced that the one and only worthwhile conclusion to reach is that he's a fake, and that no other comments amount to anything but rationalization and denial. They may be right, but they may not be. However, it is predictable that the idea "they may not be" will never have more than a miniscule amount of support or interest here. Claus's post was predictable, but I found it depressing and for some reason I don't feel like sharing any thoughts about JE at the moment. There wasn't anything so wrong about the post, it wasn't even (for a change) involving me personally. It just underscored that--whatever a "believer" argues here--three things will happen....the criticisms will be accepted as obvious anyway (and credit taken by skeptics that an effective job has been done and a beliver is finally "beginning to see the light")...the positive JE statements will be ridiculed by some and will definitely lead to many exhaustive follow up questions...and that I'll see anything I write misrepresented, twisted, and added to some inumerable "list of questions for Clancie", so I can be badgered with them in the future. Just feeling a bit of burn out today contemplating it. I mean, you're right, Mike. "What's the point?" Well, maybe it will pass...we'll see. And, dharlow, you are quite an optimist. Any time other mediums' work has been brought up here, very few skeptics seem interested in learning more about it at all. Personally, I think most don't want to do the research...the reading...give the thought to...anything but the most obvious and easy critiques (i.e. JE, Sylvia, and cold/warm/hot reading).
Clancie Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,040	__________________ From CFLarsen: "Better include my name (in your sig line), just to drive your point home." Per your above advice to include your name in my sig line, Claus, here it is. You're now back on my "Ignore" list (of one).

17th August 2003, 10:23 AM	#15
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Clancie, I have a little trouble understanding how you can walk away from this. The point of posting your analysis is to provide your side of this. You have finished the analysis, I see. So let's hear what you came up with. We are most interested. There have been quite a number of skeptics chiming in. We very much want to hear what believers have to say. Keep an open mind, right? You are, however, wrong about what might happen. There is, after all, a fourth possibiliy - but only for those with an open mind: It is actually possible that you will finally begin to make an impression here. Even though you are "up" against many more skeptics that you have been used to so far, it shouldn't deter you from stating your case. Do you feel a little overwhelmed here, defending your viewpoint? I know how you feel, Clancie. Because I've been there. At Pam's board, at Steve's board and at TVTalkshows. Yeah, it gets lonely. I didn't back down then. You know that. And I don't see any reason why you should. Quite frankly, I really don't see what you have to fear from me or anybody else, for that matter. If you have the conviction of your beliefs, you should definitely stand by them. Especially if you think you can argue rationally for them. That is what you are trying to do, isn't it? Yup, this is a tough 'hood. If you think you can argue your viewpoints rationally, go ahead. If you think your beliefs cannot stand the scrutiny of rationality, then you should back down. Just don't ever - ever - refer to this as you being bullied or anything like that. You should accept defeat and, in the future, only refer to yourself as a believer. Which is fine - nobody can ever point fingers at you for merely believing. It becomes quite another scenario if you claim evidence, yet have none. But if you do? Think of the consequences. One might refer to laughed-at geniuses of the past. It seems to be a very popular practice in woo-woo circles, so why not invoke that image now? On July, 25th, you said that you "very much" wanted to comment on renata's thread, as well as a couple more. Today, 23 days after, you say you have finished - but are backing down. On August, 10th, you were less than one day away from finishing. That was a week ago. During that week, you have posted quite frequently, so I am not entirely convinced that you are suffering from burn-out. You seem to be strong enough to open new threads, also on the subject of JE. So you cannot possible have "JE-fatigue", or any other kind. It is very tempting to believe that you realized that you were not able to come up with anything even vaguely convincing. The data does not give an unequivocal answer, so I will refrain from saying that this is, indeed, the case. But it's close. Damned close, Clancie. Nevertheless, get back when you feel like it. I will, however, question your state of depression, should you start posting in other threads. That will only make me think that you are making this whole thing up. Oh, ye of little faith.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com